Concerning Al Aqd Al Amaan: Covenants of Security
04-05-2008
Al Aqd Al Amaan – is the covenant of security - which
Muslims may, or may not, have with the kuffar while those Muslims reside or live
in the lands of the kuffar. Regarding this important topic, the questions that
need to be asked and answered are: what is the exact nature of the covenant that
we may have with the kuffar if we reside or enter the lands of the kuffar, and
what are the conditions that nullify or may nullify this covenant?
It has been claimed, by some Muslims, that there exists what they call an
“implicit” covenant which is made between a Muslim and the kuffar (or, more
especially, with the kaffir authorities) when a Muslim obtains a Visa to enter
or reside in the lands of the kuffar. Some other Muslims, myself included,
incline toward the view that this is mistaken - and that for there to be a
covenant, an agreement in the Shariah sense, there must be a verbal or written
agreement between individuals. That is, that the conditions, and terms, are
known to both parties - or at least they have agreed something, in person.
In addition, it has been claimed that those Muslims residing in the lands of the
kuffar have an implicit covenant with the kuffar by virtue of the fact that the
kuffar (or, more especially, the kaffir authorities) allow Muslims the so-called
“freedom” and the “protection” accorded to kaffir citizens. Again, some other
Muslims, myself included, incline toward the view that this is mistaken. I, in
particular, take exception to the use of kaffir terms such as “freedom” - which
terms I consider are meaningless for a Muslim, and which terms are kaffir names
for their Tawagheet. (See, for example, The Kaffir Error of Freedom.)
However, there is no dispute that if we Muslims have a covenant, it must be
honoured, for there are Ahadith which stress the importance of honouring a
covenant, such as Abu Dawud (4423) and as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“You who believe, honour your covenants.” 5: 1 Interpretation of Meaning
Furthermore, no covenant or treaty can be unconditional because that is unfair,
and goes against honour, for as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says :
“Allah loves those who are honourable in their duty: therefore honour your
obligations with those of the Mushrikeen with whom you have a treaty - provided
they have not supported anyone against you nor themselves have violated it.” 9:4
Interpretation of Meaning
In addition, it should be understood that even if there is a covenant of
security, it does not mean that we have to obey the laws of the kuffar if by
obeying these laws we are doing what is haram. If the kuffar try to force us to
do this, by for example making laws that make it an offence for us to do what is
halal, then they are acting dishonourably, and against the principle of the
covenant itself.
Furthermore, if we assume that there is such a covenant for Muslims residing in
the lands of the kuffar, does that mean that we as individual Muslims have to
accept whatever the kuffar do to our brothers and sisters, in the lands of the
kuffar or elsewhere? That is - as some claim - that such an “implicit” covenant
is only abrogated (broken) when we, as an individual, are attacked, or
dishonoured, in person, by the kuffar.
Thus, do we have to allow the kuffar to do what they want, such as imprison our
brothers and sisters for being Muslims, for wanting to participate in Jihad, for
upholding Al-wala wal-bara? Does this “implicit” covenant which some claim we
have allow the kuffar to continuously insult our Deen or our Prophet (salla
Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam)?
Yet it is known and accepted that whoever insults our Deen and our Prophet (salla
Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) - be they Muslim or kaffir - has overstepped the limits
of behaviour and become insolent and arrogant. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“And there shall be no blame for those who take revenge after they have
suffered injustice. The way (of blame) is only for those rebellious ones who
oppress others and who insolently walk on the earth: for these there will be a
painful torment indeed.” 42: 41-42 Interpretation of Meaning
“Allah does not forbid you from treating honourably those who do not act against
you because of your Deen, or who have not driven you from your dwellings, for
Allah loves those who act with honour. But Allah forbids you from treating with
respect, or befriending, those who act against you because of your Deen, or have
driven you from your dwellings or aided others to do this - for those of you who
do this are without honour.” 60: 8-9 Interpretation of Meaning
In this respect, there is the example of Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf, who was not a
Muslim, mentioned by Bukhari, by Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) in
as-Saarim al-Maslool and by ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (Rahimullah) in his Tafsir
(9:12). This person was killed, by Muhammed bin Maslama, and others, for
demeaning and insulting the Prophet and our Deen. As Sheikh ul-Islam ibn
Taymayyah (Rahimullah) says:
“It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the
agreement of amnesty protects the harbi’s blood…but they killed him because of
his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it
becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have
sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant.” (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)
“The first obligation after Eeman is the repulsion of the enemy who demeans and
insults our Way of Life and who interferes in our affairs.” (Refer to Al
Ikhtiyaraat Al Fuqaha, and Fatawa Kubra 4, 608)
Furthermore, there is the example of the female servants of Abd Allah ibn Khat’l
who were killed by order of the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam) - refer
to Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah): Al-Saarim al-Maslool - and the
killing of Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who supported the enemy of the Muslims (refer to
Al-Tamhid, 16:142).
Thus, we are led to ask questions such as: what, according to Deen Al-Islam, was
the wrong of our brother Babar Ahmad, who was arrested by the kuffar, beaten,
insulted, and who has been imprisoned by the kuffar for years? What, according
to Deen Al-Islam, was the wrong of our brothers who were arrested and are now in
prison for demonstrating against those who has insulted our beloved Prophet (salla
Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam)? What was the wrong, according to Deen Al-Islam, of our
sister in Dewsbury who was suspended from her job for refusing to remove her
veil?
We have to ask: what do the actions of a kaffir like John Reid mean when he asks
Muslims to spy on their brothers and sisters and pass information to the kuffar?
What do the actions of a kaffir like Ruth Kelly mean when she and other
officials like her reward with money and honours those Muslims who ally
themselves with the kuffar against their brothers and sisters, and who imitate
the kuffar by accepting the values of the kuffar, in clear defiance of Shariah?
We have to ask: what do the actions of the kuffar, in Afghanistan and Iraq,
prove? For they have invaded and occupied Muslim lands; and they have insulted,
humiliated, killed and imprisoned our brothers and sisters. In many instances,
the kuffar there and elsewhere have tortured our brothers and sisters and
insulted our Deen and our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam).
We have to ask: what do all these things, and the other things like them, mean
for Muslims, residing in Dar al-Harb? Do we accept that the kuffar are at war
with the Muslims who refuse to imitate the kuffar, and who refuse to abandon
Deen Al-Islam for the ways and values of the kuffar? Or do we accept that the
kuffar are only at war with “Muslim extremists” who do not, according to the
kuffar “represent Islam”? Do we agree with the kuffar that the moderate “Islam”
the kuffar and their apostate lackeys have manufactured is right, and that we
have a duty to meekly live in Dar al-Harb, and obey the kuffar and spy on our
brothers and sisters, and let the kuffar invade our lands, and imprison, insult
and torture and kill our brothers and sisters? Do we have a duty to accept what
the kuffar say, and allow anyone to insult our Deen, insult our beloved Prophet
(salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa salam), and let them interfere in our affairs? Do we
have any honourable duty at all toward our brothers and sisters? Or only the
duty that the kuffar will allow us to do while they are free to do what they
want, anywhere in the world?
Are we secure in the lands of Dar al-Harb? Can we now live according to Deen
Al-Islam - or must we live according to how the kuffar say we must live? Also,
if there was a covenant between us and the kuffar, have the kuffar broken this
by what they have done and are doing: by their treachery, their dishonour, their
deceit, and their actions toward us? Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“If you expect dishonesty from any people, throw back their covenant at them,
for Allah dislikes dishonesty.” 8: 58 Interpretation of Meaning
Thus, we have to ask: even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there
is such a covenant between Muslims, who reside the lands of the kuffar, and the
kuffar, then we surely we cannot continue to honour a covenant if the kuffar
themselves do not honour it?
Submitted by a Mujahid