The Muslimeen

and the procedures of

the modern day taghut
Our ultimate aim and goal is to establish the tawhid and sunnah and destroy
shirk and any sorts of bidah. Our usool is relied on calling people towards
tawhid with the manhaj of the salaf while keeping distance from every and
each aqidah and usool of ahl shirk and ahl bidah such as; the exaggerations of
Khawarij, Mutazili rationalism, unreliability of the Murjiah, Rafdhi
emotionalism, empty words of ahl kalam and effusiveness and suspicious of
the Sufs…

The ahl of tawhid and sunnah confrm upon whatsoever prophets had
brought with, obey whatever they command and while comprehending
whatever the messengers said, they perform according to its necessities. They
reject the alteration and mistakes of the exaggerators, they oppose against the
tawil of ignorant. While expecting their rewards solely from Allah, and not
from people, they make jihad against those who oppose to the messengers
with the solely aim of earning the nearness of Allah and His assent.

It is because those ignorant and exaggerators do not differentiate what are

commanded and restricted they can not realize what are true and what are
false; they do not understand the aim of the messengers and moreover they
do not search for the ways of obedience to the messengers. In the contrary
they are ignorant regarding the message which had been brought by the
messengers and they have no information regarding the things that had been
given to them. They merely exalt their aims. And they are followers of the
hawa and people of ahl kalaam.

But when we talk about Islam we need evidences rather than opinions and
kalaam. One of the worst outcome of the modern day is that Allah (awj) lifted
the ‘ilm by taking the scholars and only left students of ‘ilm and grossly
ignorant individuals on the earth.

I myself would have not thought that one day I would have to prepare such
refutation to clarify the issue that being from a nation does not necessarily
mean that this person is a nationalist.

We will try to describe the terms, citizen, nation, nationalist and nationalism
to get rid of the confusion which is aroused by the ahl kalam of today.

This matter comprises many very important details. It is not correct to pass
hukm prior to taking into consideration all of these details and viewing it
from all perspectives. When the issue is regarding matters of Islam especially
regarding the hukm of Islam without evidence an individual passing hukm
over something that it is halal/haraam or that it is kufr/shirk will make way
and lead to a heart rendering result. In order to prevent this it is very
important to research and take the matters in hand patiently. We will
inshaAllah take each matter in hand in priority sequence.

Regarding the hukm of the identifcation card, citizenship, driver’s license,

birth certifcate, passport, the fag and other symbols representing the kafr
states, the use and the carrying of the kafr currency and paying tax to the
kuffar we can say the following:

Identifcations/certifcations of the kuffar states; identity card, birth

certifcate, citizenship, passport, driving licences and civil registered
marriage certifcates

A documentation of identity, also called a piece of identifcation (ID), is a

document used to verify aspects of a person's identity. If issued in the form of
a small, mostly standard-sized card, it is usually called an Identity Card (IC).
In some countries the possession of an identity card is compulsory while in
others it is voluntary. In countries which do not have formal identity
documents, informal ones may sometimes be required. In the absence of a
formal identity document, driving licenses tend to be accepted as the most
effective method of proof of identity. National passports are also accepted
and are usually also recognized as a form of identifcation outside of the
issuing country, even health beneft cards are considered as identifcation in
some states.

Citizenship is referred to as membership in a community. Citizenship status

often implies some responsibilities and duties which will vary depending on
one's state. The most common duties being:

- paying taxes (although tourists and illegal aliens also pay some taxes such
as sales taxes, etc)

- serving in the country's armed forces when called upon and be elected to
certain offces of the government (with some exceptions to some states who
have made it obligatory for all residents to serve in state military when the
state is in need)

- having rights of political participation

In most countries the condition of being a citizen, is based on the place of a

person's birth, or based on the citizenship of one's parents even some
countries use both bases for ascribing citizenship.

Nationality is described as a relationship between a person and their state of

origin, culture, association, affliation and/or loyalty. Nationality affords the
state jurisdiction over the person, and affords the person the protection of the
state. Nationality is traditionally based either on right of the territory or on
right of blood, although it now usually it contains both. The people of a
nation-state may have various and overlapping identities based on such
factors of society as religion, race, ethnicity, social class, and gender. One
must not mix nationality with citizenship. Although in some circumstances
these two interlock one must not confuse nationality in means of ethnicity
and race with citizenship. All of mankind has been created and all belong to a
certain type of peoples being of different ethnic and race. An individual
belonging to a certain race and ethnic background does not necessarily mean
that he is the citizen or carries the nationality of a certain state or vise versa.

Nationality derived from either place of birth, parentage, or ethnicity, culture

and religion. Citizenship derives from a legal relationship with a state.
Having citizenship is mostly related with nationality and this type of citizen
is called as native-born citizen. A native-born citizen is a person of a country
who was born within the country's territory and has been according to the
state law recognized as that country's citizen from birth. A person who was
born in a country that did not recognize him as its citizen at birth but later
naturalized as its citizen is called as naturalized citizen. It is possible to have
a nationality without being a citizen; it is also possible to have political rights
without being a national of a state. In most nations, a non-citizen is a non-
national and called either a foreigner or an alien.

In order to know the citizens who reside within the borders of their state, and
to determine the number of citizens within the population the kuffar states
give identifcation cards which carry personal information regarding the
individual or they make it mandatory for each individual to obtain or carry a
card as such so the individuals could be easily recognized among or
differentiated from the others.

In the same sense those born within the borders of a country obtain birth
certifcates from that state. A birth certifcate is a vital record that documents
the birth of a child and refers to a certifcation of the original birth record. As
the birth certifcate authenticates the birth of the child it also contains
registration information. While in some states the birth certifcate is evaluated
as citizenship in others it is evaluated separate from citizenship (ie Germany).
The driver’s license is not related to citizenship yet because it contains
registration information they are accepted as identifcation and it is a
certifcation which informs the right of driving a vehicle. The driver’s license
is an offcial document which states that a person may operate a motorized
vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck, or a bus. In some jurisdictions,
driver's licenses are issued after the recipient has passed a driving test, while
in others; a person acquires a license before beginning to drive.

The passport is a certifcate which registers personal information which is

used for the passing between (to and from) state borders and is also handy
identifcation for the protection of life and properties while traveling in some
cases. It is also describes as a document, issued by a state government, which
certifes, for the purpose of international travel, the identity and nationality of
its holder. The elements of identity are name, date of birth, sex, and place of
birth. Most often, nationality and citizenship are congruent. A passport does
not of itself entitle the passport holder to consular protection while abroad or
any other privileges, in the absence of any special agreements which cover
the situation. It does, however, normally entitle the passport holder to return
to the country which issued the passport. Rights to consular protection arise
from international agreements, and the right to return arises from the laws of
the issuing country. A passport does not represent the right or the place of
residence of the passport holder in the country which issued the passport.

Civil registered marriage certifcate in some jurisdictions a marriage

certifcate is the offcial record that two people have undertaken a marriage
ceremony. In some other jurisdictions, a marriage license serves a dual
purpose of granting permission for a marriage to take place and then
recording the fact that it has done so. Basically it is a document issued either
by a church or state authority authorizing a couple to marry.

Now there is also the issue of the photographs which are placed on these
certifcates whether the photograph is Islamically permissible or not. If one
believes that photographs are in the hukm of surat (picture) and believes that
photographs are haram; in this case it is not suitable for an individual to
obtain such certifcates which require a photograph be taken and placed on
the certifcate or in the fles regarding the certifcates.

Being from a Nation and being a nationalist

Today’s contemporary nation-states consider all the people who permanently

inhabit in the same nation-state as compatriots; as those who share the same
geographical boundaries, and those who share economical ties; as fellow
countrymen. Now these ties and relationships between an individual and the
nation that lives within the same borders of the same nation-state can differ
and can depend on and be bound by an ideology, race, ethnicity, religion,
language, culture, history, gender, economic, modernity, or territory. The
relationship can be determined by one, two, three or more of each these
characteristics; either together or separately. It isn’t necessarily determined
by all of these characteristics at once.

Generally those who live within the same borders are considered a part of the
nation as a national because they are individuals who are given permission to
live within the borders of the nation state and share the same economics;
however this depends and differs in accordance to the nation-state itself.
Those who are given permission by the government of the nation-state are
usually classifed as permanent inhabitants whether they are citizens,
immigrants, refugees, or those who are not considered a part of the nation
who lives within the borders of the nation-state yet are temporary inhabitants
such as students, tourists, businessmen etc. Just because an individual is
accepted by the governing state to be a part of the nation this does not mean
that the individual has accepted the given rights and/or that he has accepted
the given responsibilities and/or that he will meet the expectations of the
government of the nation-state.

Citizenship identifes the legal status of an individual in a nation-state. In

some states citizenship is given to all those who are born within the territorial
borders of the nation-state, or it is given to those born to a mother/father
who is already a citizen of the nation-state; the situation differs depending on
the regulation of the state. It sometimes can be related to an ethnic bond or
solely a civic bond. It could be from time to time considered as a bond to a
certain society which one may share his culture, language, traditions and/or
land with. Those who are given citizenship are usually protected from being
expelled from the nation-state for as long as they live.

Although there are given descriptions and meanings to citizenship it is not

that easy to defne it in exact terms. It can be ones, ethnic tie, cultural tie, ones
traditional tie, territorial tie, religious tie, ones linguistic tie, historical tie etc
or it can be ones relation with the state including all these ties or even sole
political ties. However in general, citizenship is the right given by the nation-
state to the individuals who are born in the territorial land which the state
governs. Individuals who have been considered as citizens of the state are
also given the right to live within the state borders without further
permission needed in regards to acceptance back into the state after having
left the borders along with political rights. The meaning of citizenship differs
according to the ideology each nation-state embraces or adopts (i.e.
territorial, political, ethnic, governing, cultural, religious etc).

Those nation-states which have built their ideology of citizenship on

territorial grounds often have regulations regarding those who had not been
born within its territorial boundaries. For example those who are born to an
X-state citizen mother/father are considered an X-state citizen although they
had been born outside the territorial boundaries of the X-state. However the
generation born after that is not considered to be an X- state citizen any
longer and is not given citizenship merely because he/she is the second
generation born outside of the territorial boundaries in a Y-state which
signifes they are no longer living within the territorial boundaries and
therefore are not accepted to be given citizenships.

One can also be granted the legal status of citizen if he applies to the state he
wishes to permanently live in after having adopted some traits of its culture,
to become a citizen. Citizenship is not necessarily membership. Again
depending on the laws and regulations of the nation-state citizenship can
mean membership yet it also may solely mean permanent inhabitants of the
nations-state who have been given certain rights by the governing state. As
mentioned above citizenship can also carry the sole meaning of being those
who are born within or those born to a parent who had been born within the
territorial borders of a certain nation-state.

Being given citizenship as a birth-right merely because one has been born
within certain borders differs from being granted citizenship, as the
individual who has applied to the state out of his own will in order to attain
citizenship. The difference is that some nation-states have rules and
regulations which differ for those who are born within the state and when it
comes to granting citizenship for those who had not been given citizenship
due to birthright but are requesting it later in life. In some states citizenship is
given to those born within the state by birthright but the individual must
reach a certain age (16 or 18) to obtain his citizenship and thus intisaab to the
state is requested prior to obtaining the status. In most cases citizenship given
to those by birthright the state government does not request nor impose a
membership to the state, a promise, a pledge or an oath of submitting,
loyalty, embracing of laws and regulations and intisaab etc to the nation-state
(in all cases in today’s world this governing nation-state is the taghout).
Although the governing state may expect from the citizen by birthright to do
all those mentioned above; the citizen by birthright and/or the wali of the
citizen by birthright are not requested to attain membership to promise, to
pledge, to assure, or to take oath of adherence or submitting to the states
governing laws etc. It is merely a given service and rights to the individuals
who live in the geographical area governed by the state. In most states
citizens are not required to give authority, guardianship, power of attorney,
friendship/allegiance, help in deen and association, be side by side, to own
tasarruf, to accept them to be an Amr, to give riyasah (administration and
authority), to take on the duty of help to the taghout, nor to support the
taghout. These are requests and acts of intisaab and they are not required by
all nation-states from those given citizenship by birthright or from those who
are given citizenship by request.

This criteria and requirements of the nation-states differ according to nation-

state and thus can not be applied as a form of takfr to all of those who carry
citizenship of nation-states. Yet it is always an obligation to make sure the
Muslim does not give, show or promise to give intisaab to the taghout. The
nation-state will always expect those who it has granted citizenship to adhere
to its laws, accept its authority and run to help when needed but the
expectations of the state is not the care of the Muslim unless he is requested
to act upon it which in this case the Muslim will not.

The obtaining of citizenship in most nation-states is not necessarily

adherence, giving the power of authority, the acceptance of the kafr as an
amr over the Muslim nor is it allegiance in all cases. Now as mentioned the
cases of those who attain citizenship by application may vary depending on
the state they apply in. Those who are given citizenship are given the right to
reside in the given borders for as long as they will, they can enter back into
the state each time they leave and are protected from being expelled at any
given time.

Sometimes depending on the nation-state those who apply for citizenship are
requested to promise, pledge, take oath and assure the governing state that
after being given citizenship they will adhere to and carry on the laws and
their responsibilities given by the state, as a citizen. This is a request of
intisaab to the nation state (taghout in this case). As intisaab to the taghout is
kufr to ensure intisaab to the taghout is also kufr. Attaining citizenship in a
case as such becomes problematic. If the Muslim is to pledge allegiance to the
taghout he will be a murtad (kafr) to have promised to make intisaab to the
taghout. Although he has not carried out the actions himself, taking an oath
to do so does not differ from performing the action itself and it is still kufr.
For this purpose if a Muslim requests to attain citizenship of a certain nation
state governed by the kuffar he must make sure there are no requests of
intisaab either written or oral.

If there is a request of intisaab to the taghout then the Muslim must make
sure the taghout or the offcials of the taghout are informed and notifed that
he (the Muslim) will not pledge, promise, or take oath to ensure intisaab to
the taghout. If the intisaab is requested on a sheet of paper the Muslim must
make sure all the kufr is deleted, or mutilated in a very visible manner prior
to signing, so that when the taghout offcials look at it they are able to see the
mutilation and understand that intisaab to the taghout is not accepted nor
promised in any sort of method.

Citizenship in short terms means those who have been given politic rights by
the governing state. Thus it has been understood as the membership in a
polity. Yet the meaning and concept of citizenship differentiates according to
the state and it is not necessarily membership. While in one state being a
citizen is being a permanent inhabitant of the geographical borders who has
been given rights by the governing state, in another state it means those who
are individual members of the state by ethnic ties. Thus for this reason
citizenship is not always non-compatible nor is it always compatible with
Islam. Regarding citizenship it could be said that in most nation-states
citizenship is walayah given by the governing state to certain inhabitants of
the state and not the inhabitants giving walayah to the nation-state. To be a
citizen of a nation does not mean having faith, trust or belief in the taghout. It
is not acceptance of the authority of the taghout over the Muslim. Thus
national identity does not mean nationalism.

If one considers that being a citizen or having citizenship is at the same time
being nationalist how can we explain the situation of a Christian citizen, or a
communist citizen? Is not nationalism a religion the same as communism? Is
it possible to be a democrat and a Muslim? Is it possible to be a nationalist
and a communist? In conclusion this irrational doubt has no basis therefore
there is no need to waste time with it.

An Identifcation Card is a card which authenticates most the times the name,
surname, birthplace, gender, birth date and possibly the address and a
picture of an individual to confrm that the bearer is the one identifed on the
card. A national ID card can be broadly defned as a nationwide, all purpose
identifcation document for citizens of an x-state. It could be issued by the
federal government, or by provincial governments. It would likely come in
the form of a plastic card, with a computer chip containing name, date, place
of birth, and gender of the bearer as well as a serial number. Possible
additional information would be physical attributes such as height, eye color,
or other information like current address, or a sample signature etc. A
national ID card in general is an identifcation document which could be used
in many different situations, both in dealing with government agencies and
private entities to identify oneself.

There are many types of identifcation documents; birth certifcates, health

cards, passports, social insurance/security cards, citizenship cards, drivers
licenses, student identifcation cards etc. Each document or card is used or
can be used for different purposes. These identifcation cards are usually
given by the state to the bearer as a verifcation of personal information. The
methods and regulation to obtain these documents once again differ
according to the state one lives in.

Some may think that all those who are bearer of national identifcation cards
are permitted the use of many free of charge services provided by the
governing state. However this is not true this changes according to state rules
and regulations. Not everyone in every state who carries national
identifcation cards is given the right to use certain services. Obtaining a card
simply consisting of ones own personal identifcation information from the
taghout without the performance or acceptance of any kufr, shirk or haraam
is not the giving of any form of walayah nor is it the acceptance of the
governing of the taghout state.

We can compare national identifcation cards to the student cards given in

universities. When a student registers to a university as a student he is often
given a student identifcation card. A card which contains, the name, the
surname, birth date, gender and the faculty the student is studying in. The
University has provided those students who attend to it with an
identifcation card which the student can use to identify him while going in
and out of the campus or dormitories, during examinations and to enter or
participate in certain student activities only provided to those who study at
the university.

Now the national identifcation card given by the state is like the student card
given by the university. The student who obtains the student card does not
necessarily carry, share, adhere or submit to the ideology of the university.
Regardless of his belief or ideology the student and only because he is a
student of the university is given certain rights by the university as long as he
continues his studies at the university and keeps his student identifcation as
long as he is a student of the university. In the taghout states the
identifcation card is usually given to those who have been given permission
to stay in the state regardless of their status (citizen, immigrant, refugee etc).
It is a service provided by the taghout to all those who inhabit in the state
borders not to all those who accept and live the deen of the taghout just like
the university provides for its students.

However in all conditions the Muslim must ensure that the application,
procedure and the obtaining of the document does not contain and that he
does not show acceptance in any manner to any kufr, shirk or haraam prior
to, during or after the application and/or obtaining the document.

Obtaining an identifcation card/document/certifcate which declares

information such as name, surname, birth date, birthplace, address etc
information, from the nation state does not mean one has accepted the
authority and has given walayah to the state. Carrying an identifcation card
is not kufr either unless otherwise proven. Unless an individual obtains and
carries an identifcation card exalting the taghout state, glorifying it, showing
patriotism etc, however there is no Islamic evidence regarding this matter
that it is not permissible to have identifcation cards.

One cannot take the defnition of the terms nation, national, nationalism and
citizenship out of a dictionary –as many get their ‘ilm online from the internet
by sheikh (!) google or ustad (!) wikipedia- and regulate its meaning on the
entire society. Historians, anthropologists, orientalists, occidentals even
politicians have not been able to determine and have great diffculty
determining the entire and complete meaning of what the terms carry. While
defning and making a description of the term is even almost impossible how
we can claim unconditional takfr out of a term which has so many different
meanings.

The concepts of citizen and nationality are often confounded together.

However nationality and citizenship are separable. Nationality has been
acquired according to different criteria in different countries, depending on
the traditions and conceptions of nationhood. In some cases it is based on the
principle of descent whereas in others it is the principle of territorial
affliation. The two different conceptions of nationality in today’s modern
societies are related to the distinction of both ethnic nationalism and civic
nationalism. Nationality is usually determined and granted to be citizenship
while citizenship is not given to all nationals. Citizenship is an exclusive
status, reserved for those who already exist in the community which exists
before the polity comes into being. Nationality is applicable to all persons
while citizenship signifes the possession of special rights. The laws of
various states which govern the acquisition of nationality at birth differ
greatly all around the world.

Nation in Latin means birthplace. The co-existence of a special group in a

single land gives form to nationality. That land belongs to that group and no
other group has a right and claim upon it. According to historians, nation can
either be a ethnic or civic according to others it is synonymous with race or
for ‘the people’, to anthropologists it is a group of cognates descended from
common ancestors, to others it is cultural unity and/or it is the sum of total
persons who inhabit in a given geographical area. To sociologists it is the tie
of sharing an education and culture and to others it is the sharing of same or
similar social traits. The defnition and description of the term ‘nation’ even
differs accordingly among the orientalisits and occidentalists. Depending on
the vision of an individual the defnition and character of the term nation and
all that which it can hold within differentiates.

A nation primarily is a community or people; a stable community of people.

Today the term nation can defne a civil society who share or differ in diverse
traits, language or multi-lingual, multi-cultural, multi-ethnical, and diverse in
beliefs, ideologies and lives; yet a civil society who live and share the trait of
living in the same geographical territory and or who share the characteristic
of the same economical life or a civil society whose parents (ancestors) have
shared the same geographical, territorial land. A group of people not always
based on tribes or race but sometimes a community of people based on
common history maybe even common language. The national community
and the state community also differ from one another. The national
community is a group of people who usually share the same traits such as
language, culture, ethnicity, race, maybe even religion. The state community
is a community of peoples living together sharing the same geographical land
within the same state borders regardless of their language, ethnicity, race,
belief etc. A nation can be a historically constituted, stable community of
people, formed on the bases of language, territory, economic life all
manifested in a common culture. In historical sense every nation has its
beginning and its end. Although they may have ended it doesn’t necessarily
mean that the entire nation has died in complete. They have come to form
newer nations and it is important to emphasize that not all characteristics
mentioned above be present in a nation. They may be constituted on a few of
these characteristic or by all of these characteristics.

In nationalism it is necessary for every individual to feel that he is not

separate from his community, either in fact or emotionally. It is necessary
that for nationalism to predominate oneself this must become his sole, like a
compulsive instinct. Both nations and nationalism can be built upon common
interest, geographical environment, ethnicity, race, history, class, culture,
economic, religion, language, gender, modernity. The community of nation
can be state nations or non-state nations. Although the word nation is used
by all of us, it is questionable whether we all mean the same thing because
each nation consists of its own character. An individual who is a part of a
nation regardless of the shared characteristics does not necessarily mean the
individual has accepted the ideology of the nations' nationalism. National
identity or nation ness does exist in the absence of nationalism whereas
nationalism is bound by a nation regardless of the bases of the nation.

Nation meaning “the people” in today’s modernity it is even identifed as

having become transregional and transnational. With this identifcation a
Muslims ethnic national identity may be German as a result of being a part of
an ethnically German nation, while his cultural and territorial national
identity may be American as a result of being raised in an American culture
moreover above all these national identifcations his creed is Islam therefore
he is a part of the Muslim ummah, the Islamic brotherhood, by submitting.

Him being German and American nationals does not necessarily mean that
he has given wala to the taghout state, they are only a part of his identity, his
description, his race, language, ethnicity, history, education, social
background, territorial boundaries that he or his ancestors have had
attachment to etc. They are only ethnic and cultural traits where as being
Muslim, is ones strong, profound and importance given identity by creed, as
Sayyid Qutb had described it: “The nationality of the Muslim, by which he is
identifed, is not the nationality determined by a government” (Milestones)

So the citizenship given by a nation-state identifying one as a ‘national’ of the

state is not the true nationality of the Muslim whereas Islam is the true,
dominant, and real nationality especially within the Islamic-state. “A Muslim
has no nationality except his belief, which makes him a member of the
Muslim community in dar-al-Islam." (Sayyid Qutb, Milestones)

Being a part of a nation becomes problematic once the Muslims trait of being
from or a part of a nation dominates over his creed and takes over in forms of
patriotism, matriotism, tribalism, ethnic nationalism etc. Nationality is the co-
existence in the same land of individuals comprising a special group. A
common natural and geographical environment, community or race,
language, history, ethnicity or even political ideologies establishes the bond
between the individuals who have a common bond as far as their interests
go. That is where a distinction is marked between themselves and the
foreigners.

Nationalism within the Islamic perspective

It was the wisdom of Allah (awj) to create people in nations and tribes. The
wisdom is that they know each other and explore their particular cultures
and backgrounds. This variety should never be a source of difference or
disagreement or fghting; rather, it should help more in acquaintance and
mutual understanding. The evidence for this is the verse that reads: "O
mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you
nations and tribes that ye may know one another." (al-Hujraat 49/13)

Allah (swt) also commands: "And if thy Lord had willed, He verily would
have made mankind one nation, yet they cease not differing, save him on
whom thy Lord hath mercy; and for that He did create them." (Hud 11/118-
119)

These verses show in clear words that Almighty Allah willed that people be
created in different colors, places, races so that each single human being
would be urged to try to explore other places and races and get to know
them. Ibn Kathir stated: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a
female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one
another. So that they get to know each other by their nation or tribe. Mujahid
said that Allah's statement, (that you may know one another.) refers to one's
saying, ‘So-and-so the son of so-and-so, from the tribe of so-and-so.’ Sufyan
Ath-Thawri said, the Himyar (who resided in Yemen) dealt with each other
according to their provinces, while the Arabs in the Hijaz (Western Arabia)
dealt with each other according to their tribes.” (Tafsir)

However, Islam fnds guilty any call that uses places, races or colors as bases
of discrimination. Allah (jj) states: "The noblest of you in the eyes of Allah is
the most pious." (al-Hujraat 49/14)

Islamic nationality depends on a common creed. Muslims from all over the
world form a single nation, and an alien is he who has no share in Islamic
privileges, even if he is a parent, a son, a kin, a neighbor or co-tenant; he is
the unbeliever. Here the frontier of thought and belief (not manmade
conventional borders) becomes important. Color, blood and territory which
are natural phenomena or human conventions cannot be regarded as criteria
within the Islamic borders. They are all equals in Islam so long as they are
Muslims. In this way the extensive nation of Islam is created. From the east
coast to the west, all the lands form a single nation.

The emigration of RasulAllah (saw) is a symbol of a move from geographical

nationality to an ideology of universal nationality through aqidah. Allah
(swt) commands: “And hold fast the covenant of God all together and be not
disunited, and remember the favor of God on you when you were enemies,
then He united your hearts so by His favor you became brethren.” (al-i Imran
3/103) and “Indeed all believers are brethren.” (al-Hujraat 49/10)

Deen in Islam is the true boundary of Islamic nationality; the co-religionist

becomes a compatriot, and an unbeliever becomes an alien of the nation-
state. “Muhammad is the Apostle of God, and his friends act as the enemies
of infdels and as brethren towards one another.” (al-Fath 48/29)

“Indeed, there is for you a good example in Ibrahim and those with him
when they said to their people: Surely we are clear of you and of what you
serve besides Allah; We declare ourselves to be clear of you, and enmity and
hatred have appeared between us and you for ever until you believe in Allah
alone.” (Mumtahinah 60/4)

Nationalism is defned as the state of mind in which supreme loyalty is felt to

be due to ones nation. Giving importance to kinship culminates eventually in
racism. Nationalism resorts to race and historical heritage when trying to
point out the differences and similarities which exist between two nations
and account for their compatibility and incompatibility.

But Islam rises to strongly fght this type of nationalism, and is opposed to
race and historical nationalism. It says that men and women, black and white,
civilized and uncivilized, African and European, Aryan and Semitic, all have
the same root in creation and are from the same parents; blood relationship is
no criterion for superiority: “O people! Fear your God Who has created you
from a single soul.” (an-Nisa 4/1) In Islam the color of the skin is no criteria
for superiority or inferiority but taqwa (piety).

Allah (awj) created Adam and Eve, and made their offspring into peoples,
tribes, races and colors. All people come from Adam and Eve, and no color,
ethnicity or race is superior to another. Rather all of them are equal before
Allah with regard to their origins, and the one who fears his Lord the most is
the best and most honorable before Allah. However the people splitting after
this into nations, countries and races, is only like the splitting of a single
family, brothers from one father and one mother.

Nationalism based on the values of jahiliyyah is one of the leftovers from the
jahiliyyah era. It is blameworthy and an evil manner which causes division
between the believers. There are many evidences from the Qur’an and
Sunnah that prohibits nationalism based on lineage, ethnicity, race etc.

RasulAllah (saw) referred to all forms of asabiyya, tribalism, racism and

patriotism when he (saw) commanded: “Leave it. It is rotten.” (Bukhari)
RasulAllah (saw) also warned his ummah against the dangers of this type of
nationalism: “He is not one of us who calls for Asabiyah, (tribalism) or who
fghts for Asabiyah or who dies for Asabiyah." (Abu Dawud)

And said: "... People should give up their pride in nations because this is a
coal from the coals of hell-fre. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will
consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through khur
(feces)." (Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi)

RasulAllah (saw) described its evilness while comparing it with biting ones
fathers genital: "He who calls for Asabiyyah is as if he bit his father's genitals"
(Mishkat al-Masabith)

Nationalism without doubt is a way which leads to the corruption in the

ummah, division in the ranks of the believers by exalting racial differences
and shirk by venerating the state, fag and other symbols of the nation states
of the taghouts. However it is not right to pass the hukm kufr on every and
each type of nationalism which occur among the Muslim.

Islam does not forbid a Muslim to love his homeland or the country in which
he lives or grew up in. What is reprehensible is basing one’s feelings of
loyalty and disavowal on that, and loving and hating on that basis. A person,
who belongs to the same country as the Muslim, is not closer to the Muslim
than a Muslim from another land and the reason for loving or hating others
should not be based on the fact that they come from the same country as you.

Rather loyalty and disavowal, or love and hatred, should all be based on
Islam and piety. RasulAllah (saw) used to love Makkah because it was the
most beloved land to Allah, but he did not love the kuffar who lived there,
rather he fought them because they fought against Islam and killed the
Muslims. Neither he nor his companions ever gave precedence to their love
of Makkah over the laws of Allah, so when Allah forbade those who had
migrated from Makkah to go back to it, except for Hajj and three days after it,
they adhered to that and did not stay there for longer than that period. Their
love for the land of Makkah did not make them disobey Allah, let alone do
anything that could be worse than that.

RasulAllah (saw) loved Makkah and he gave precedence to obeying his Lord
over his love for Makkah. It was narrated that Ibn Abbas said: RasulAllah
(saw) said to Makkah, “What a good land you are, and how dear you are to
me. Were it not that my people drove me out from you, I would never have
lived anywhere else.” (Tirmidhi narrated with sahih chain)

There are also similar stories of the Sahabah and those who came after them,
who have this natural love for their birthplaces. The natural love that a
person feels for the place where they grew up is something that is not
regarded as blameworthy by the shariah, so long as that love does not
distract one from acts of worship and obedience which are more important.
Hence we see that the Sahaabah (ra), Muhajir and Ansar alike, left their
homelands and went out to other lands, spreading the call of Islam
throughout other countries. They went out for purposes that were nobler
than their attachment to land and buildings. It is narrated by Suraqah ibn
Malik ibn Ju'sham al-Mudlaji that RasulAllah (saw) said: “The best of you is
the one who defends his tribe, so long as he commits no sin.” (Abu Dawud)

There had been many wars between the Aws and Khazraj during the
Jahiliyyah, with a great deal of enmity and hatred, and intense fghting, until
Islam came and they entered therein, and became brothers by the grace of
Allah (swt). After Islam had set their affairs straight and they had become
united, a Jewish man passed by a gathering of Aws and Khazraj, and he was
bothered by their friendship and unity. So he sent a young man who was
with him to sit amongst them and remind them of the wars that used to be
waged between them. He reminded the battle of Bu'ath where the Aws had
b e e n victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about
division between them. He did that and kept doing it until they were
provoked and became angry with one another, and they got riled up and
started shouting their slogans and calling for their weapons, and threatening
to go out to the Harrah to fght and call to arms. When the news of this
incident had reached to RasulAllah (saw), he directly went to them and
started to calm them down, and said, “Are you issuing the calls of the
jahiliyyah when I am still among you?” Then he (saw) recited to them the
following verse: “And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah, and
be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah’s favor on you, for
you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that,
by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the
brink of a pit of fre, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayah
clear to you, that you may be guided” (al-i Imran 3/103) When RasulAllah
(saw) recited this verse to them, they regretted what they had done, and they
reconciled and put aside their weapons.

In the sources of tafsir the following incident had been recorded as the reason
of the revelation of Al-i Imran 3/100-103. Wahidi narrates: “Abu Amr al-
Qantari informed me, among other things he gave me authorization to relate
from him, Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Haddadi from Muhammad ibn
Yahya ibn Khalid from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim from al-Mu’ammil ibn Ismail from
Hammad ibn Yazid from Ayyub, from Ikrimah who said: “The two tribes of
the Aws and Khazraj had fought each other in the pre-Islamic period and
upon the advent of Islam, Allah, exalted is He, united their hearts and had
peace with each other. One day, a Jew sat in an assembly of mixed people
which belonged to the Aws and Khazraj. He recited some poetry which was
composed by one of the tribes during their war against each other. Something
stirred within the people of the other tribe, and so they said: ‘Our poet has
said this and that about such-and-such a battle’. The others replied by saying:
‘And our poet has said this and that about such-and-such a battle’. Suddenly
some of them said: ‘Let us start war all over again!’ Those who belonged to
the tribe of Aws cried: ‘O people of Aws!’ and those who belonged to the
tribe of Khazraj cried: ‘O people of Khazraj!’ They all gathered up, took up
arms and aligned themselves ready for to engage in battle. At this point,
Allah (awj) revealed this verse. RasulAllah (saw) went and stood between the
two armies, read this verse and raised his voice in the process. When they
heard his voice, they stopped talking and listened to him. When he fnished
his recitation, they all dropped their weapons and embraced one another,
crying”.

Said Zayd ibn Aslam said: “Shas ibn Qays, the Jew, was an old man who
grew up in the pre-Islamic period. He was a great disbeliever. His hate for the
Muslims was extreme and his resentful envy toward them was intense. One
day, he passed by a group of Companions of the RasulAllah (saw) from the
Aws and the Khazraj who were gathered in an assembly and talking, and
was infuriated to see their unity, friendliness and reconciliation when they
were enemies in the pre-Islamic period. He said: ‘The people of Banu Qaylah
have united in this land.”

How can ye disbelieve… (Al-i Imran 3/101)

Ahmad ibn al-Hasan al-Hiri informed us, Muhammad ibn Ya'qub from
Abbas al-Duri from Abu Nu'aym al-Fadl ibn Dukayn from Qays ibn al-Rabi
from al-Agharr from Khalifah ibn Husayn from Abu Nasr from Ibn Abbas
(ra) who said: “The Aws and the Khazraj had a feud in the pre-Islamic
period. One day, they mentioned to each other what had happened in that
period and this led them to brandish their swords at each others. Upon being
informed of what was happening, RasulAllah (saw) went to them and this
verse was revealed How can ye disbelieve, when it is ye unto whom Allah's
revelations are recited, and His messenger is in your midst? up to His saying
And hold fast, all of you together, to the cable of Allah, and do not separate.
(Al-i Imran 3/103)

Al-Sharif Ismail ibn al-Hasan ibn Muhammad ibn al-Husayn al-Naqib

informed us from his grandfather Muhammad ibn al-Husayn from Ahmad
ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hasan al-Hafz from Hatim ibn Yunus al-Jurjani from
Ibrahim ibn Abi al-Layth from al-Ashja'I from Sufyan from Khalifah ibn
Husayn from Abu Nasr from Ibn Abbas (ra) who said: “The Aws and the
Khazraj were one day talking and became angry with each other to the extent
that war nearly broke out between them. They had taken arms and marched
toward each other. Then the verse How can ye disbelieve, when it is ye unto
whom Allah's revelations are recited up to His saying He did save you from
it…” (Asbabu Nuzul)

In the tafsir of the ayah, Razi stated the following after he narrated the
incident for which cause the ayah had revealed upon: “The command, By ‘If
ye listen to a faction among the People of the Book...’ in the ayah as there is a
possibility this incident had been meant, it is possible it was all types of
deviation the Jews showed effort. Haqq ta’ala had declared, this way if the
mu’min were to soften before their words and accept them this will slowly
befall them into kufr. Kufr conveys being perished both in dunya and in
deen. Being perished in dunya, is due to the occurrence of hostility and
anger, the increase of ftnah and the wars which reach shedding blood. The
punishment in deen is evident…” (Tafsir)

In another incident the leader of the tribe of Ghifar Abu Dharr (ra) narrates:
Once I was conversing with Bilal (ra). Our conversation gave way to a
dispute. Angry with him, the following insult burst from my mouth: 'You
cannot comprehend this, O son of a black woman!' As Islam expressly
forbade all kinds of racial, tribal and color discrimination, Bilal (ra) was both
upset and greatly angered. A while later a man came and told me that
RasulAllah (saw) summoned me. I went to him immediately. He (saw) said
to me: 'I have been informed that you addressed Bilal as the son of a black
woman.' I was deeply ashamed and could say nothing. RasulAllah (saw)
continued his reprimand: 'This means you still retain the standards and
judgments of the pre-Islamic days of ignorance. Islam has eradicated all those
false standards or measures judging people by blood, fame, color or wealth. It
has established that the best and most honorable of men is he who is the most
pious and upright in conduct. Is it right to defame a believer just because he
is black?' Abu Dharr felt profound remorse. He went straight to Bilal's house
and, putting his head on the threshold, said: 'This head will not rise from here
until the blessed feet of Bilal tread on the face of foolish, impolite Abu Dharr.'
Bilal responded: 'That face deserves to be kissed, not trodden upon', and
forgave Abu Dharr.” (Ibn al-Mubarak, Kitab al-Birr wa'l-Sila; Ibn al-
Mubarak, As-Salah)

There is also the incident that took place between Muhajir and Ansar which is
narrated by Abdullah al-Ansari: “When one of the Muhajir kicked one of the
Ansar and they argued, The Ansar said, `O Ansar! Help me! (Calling his tribe
ie implying; rally to my aid) and the Muhajir said, `O Muhajirun! Help me!
(calling his tribe). Upon hearing this, RasulAllah (saw) said: ‘Is it with the
calls of Jahiliyyah that you call, and I am still amongst you!’ And he became
very angry at that.” RasulAllah (saw) did not deal with the situation only by
speaking to his men, but he walked with the men all that day until nightfall,
and through the night until morning and during the following day until the
sun distressed them. Then he halted them, and as soon as they touched the
ground, they fell asleep. He did this to distract their minds from what had
transpired. (Bukhari)

In one occasion some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-Farsi. They
spoke of the inferiority of the Persian in relation to the Arabs, and upon
hearing this RasulAllah (saw) declared, ‘Salman is from us, the ahl al-bayt’.”
(Tabarani; Hakim)

This statement of RasulAllah (saw) disassociates all discrimination based on

lineage, tribal and ethnic considerations.

"O mankind, verily We have created you from a male and a female, and made
you peoples and tribes, so that you may recognize each other. Verily, the
most honored of you to Allah is (he who) safeguards himself against evil with
full awareness of Divine Laws. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (al-
Hujraat 49/13)

Allah (awj) revealed this verse warning against boasting about lineages and
abundance of wealth and against looking down on the poor.

This verse was revealed immediately after the triumphant entry of

RasulAllah (saw) into Makkah. After the declaration of immunity to the
Quraysh, RasulAllah (saw) requested Bilal (ra) to give the Adhan. A group of
three new Muslims were observing the proceedings when Bilal (ra) was
asked to make the Adhan. Attab ibn Asid remarked how happy he was that
his parents were not present to see such a disgusting sight. Another one,
Harith bin Hisham commented that RasulAllah (saw) couldn't fnd anybody
other than a black crow to make the Adhan. Suhayl ibn Amr said: Allah
willing, he will change him. The third of them Abu Sufyan, on the other
hand, said: I am not going to make any comment; I am afraid that the Lord of
heaven will divulge what I say! Allah (swt) sent Jibril (as) to inform
RasulAllah (saw) of the discussion that had just taken place. RasulAllah (saw)
asked the three men about their conversation, who confrmed to RasulAllah
(saw) what Jibril (as) told him. The verse of the Qur'an was subsequently
revealed. Because these individuals from the Quraysh were differentiating
between themselves and Bilal (ra), Allah (swt) revealed this verse, concluding
that the only criteria that Allah (swt) uses to judge between Muslims is that of
taqwa, which Bilal (ra) had and of which they were devoid of. This verse
destroys the basis of nationalism of ethnicity, tribalism, race etc in Islam.

In the tafsir books there is another incident which was narrated regarding
this ayah: “This was revealed about Thabit ibn Qays when he made a remark
about the man who did not make room for him to sit: 'What, the son of so-
and-so (referring to his mother)’. RasulAllah (saw) said: 'Who mentioned that
woman?' Thabit stood up and said: 'I did, O RasulAllah!' RasulAllah (saw)
said to him: 'Look at the faces of those present'. And when he looked, he
asked him: 'What do you see?' He said: 'I see white, red and black people'.
RasulAllah (saw) said: 'Well, you are not better than any of them unless it be
through (the good practice of) religion and God-fearingness'.

Razi in the tafsir of the ayah narrates: “I heard that one of the nobles in
Central Asia (Khurasan) was with respect to his genealogy the closest of
people to Ali (ra) but he was fasiq. There was a black former slave who was
pre-eminent both for his learning (‘ilm) and practice (of Islam). The people
liked to seek (his) blessing. It came to pass that one day he set out to the
mosque and the people followed him. The nobleman, in a state of obvious
inebriation, came upon him. The people pushed the nobleman out of the way
(of the shaikh). But the nobleman overtook them and grabbing the shaykh’s
arm, cried: ‘O Black one ... infdel and son of an infdel! I am a son of
RasulAllah. Humble yourself and show some respect!’ ... The people beat the
nobleman. But the shaikh said: “No! This is to be tolerated from him for the
sake of his ancestor. Beating him is to be reckoned according to his sin.
However, O nobleman, I am white within but black without. People behold
the whiteness of my heart behind the blackness of my face ... I have taken the
path of your father and you have taken the path of my father. People see me
in the path of your father and see you in the path of my father. They deem me
a son of your father and you, a son of my father.” (Tafsir)

Ibn Kathir stated: “O mankind! We have created you from a male and a
female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one
another. So that they get to know each other by their nation or tribe. Mujahid
said that Allah's statement, (that you may know one another.) refers to one's
saying, ‘So-and-so the son of so-and-so, from the tribe of so-and-so.’ Sufyan
Ath-Thawri said, the Himyar (who resided in Yemen) dealt with each other
according to their provinces, while the Arabs in the Hijaz (Western Arabia)
dealt with each other according to their tribes.” (Tafsir)

It is narrated from Aisha (raa) that she said: “I never remembered my parents
believing in any religion other than the true religion (i.e. Islam), and (I don't
remember) a single day passing without our being visited by RasulAllah in
the morning and in the evening. When the Muslims were put to test (i.e.
troubled by the pagans), Abu Bakr set out migrating to the land of Ethiopia,
and when he reached Bark-al-Ghimad, Ibn Ad-Daghina, the chief of the tribe
of Qara, met him and said, ‘O Abu Bakr! Where are you going?’ Abu Bakr
replied, ‘My people have turned me out (of my country), so I want to wander
on the earth and worship my Lord.’ Ibn Ad-Daghina said, ‘O Abu Bakr! A
man like you should not leave his home-land, nor should he be driven out,
because you help the destitute, earn their livings, and you keep good
relations with your Kith and kin, help the weak and poor, entertain guests
generously, and help the calamity-stricken persons. Therefore I am your
protector. Go back and worship your Lord in your town’….” (Bukhari)

Now at this point who can claim that all these whom mentioned in the
narrations became murtad due to having the leftovers of jahiliyyah
nationalism? Of course this differs when nationalism is taken as a way of life,
as a religion.

Contemporary nationalism is a concept alien to Islam because in today’s

modernity it is based on and it calls for unity based on modern ideologies
such as democracy, communism, capitalism etc and the division of peoples
according to the nation-states which are built upon these certain ideologies.
Whereas Islam binds people together on the bases of aqidah; that is belief in
Allah (swt) and His Rasul (saw), ‘la ilaha illaAllah, Muhammadun
RasulAllah’. Islam calls for the bond of tawhid.

There are many examples in the Seerah where RasulAllah (saw) rebuked
those who upheld nationalism according to clan, tribe, ancestors and race etc.
Muslims are commanded to stick together and not to disassociate themselves
from each other just because they come from different nations. RasulAllah
(saw) stated "The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are
like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with
wakefulness and fever." (Muslim)

"The faithful are like one man: if his eyes suffer, his whole body suffers."
(Muslim)

Meaning that the Muslims, whether they are of nations such as Chinese,
African, American, European or Asian origin, are one Ummah and regardless
of their nation they cannot be separated from each other. Nation ties should
never break their unity. Furthermore, Allah (swt), says, “The Faithful are but
brothers..." (al-Hujraat 49/10)

And RasulAllah (saw) said, "The Faithful are to one another like parts of a
building - each part strengthening the others"

And Abdullah ibn Umar narrated that RasulAllah (saw) stated: "Every
Muslim is a brother to a Muslim, neither wronging him nor allowing him to
be wronged. And if anyone helps his brother in need, Allah will help him in
his own need; and if anyone removes a calamity from (another) Muslim,
Allah will remove from him some of the calamities of the Day of
Resurrection; and if anyone shields (another) Muslim from disgrace, Allah
will shield him from the disgrace on the Day of Resurrection." (Bukhari;
Muslim)

Ruling according to Islam can only be achieved in one state. Abdullah ibn
Amr ibn al-As narrated that he heard RasulAllah (saw) say, "He who gave
the bay'ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his
heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him
(his authority) strike the neck of that person." (Muslim)

Abu Sa’ed al-Khudri (ra) narrated that RasulAllah (saw) said, "If a bay'ah is
taken for two Khalifahs, kill the latter one." (Bukhari)

And Arfaja said that he heard the RasulAllah (saw) say, "If someone comes to
you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and
divide your unity, kill him." (Muslim)

This unity of the Muslims was clearly highlighted in the document

RasulAllah (saw) wrote when he established the Islamic State in Madinah. In
this document, which was to regulate the relationships of Muslims and non-
Muslims in the Islamic State, regarding the Muslims, RasulAllah (saw) said:
"Allah's covenant amongst them is one" and "The Believers are brothers to the
exclusion of others" and "The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate
peace shall be made with believers are fghting in the way of Allah."

These statements serve to indicate that Muslims are one body and they are
not to be treated separately. Islam therefore leaves no room for the separate
Islamic states. Islam calls for one Islamic state with one ruler where all
Muslims are bound by the Aqidah of Islam. And this is a matter decided by
Islam to which we must submit to, for Allah (swt) says, "O mankind, verily
We have created you from a male and a female, and made you peoples and
nations, so that you may recognize each other. Verily, the most honored of
you to Allah is (he who) safeguards himself against evil with full awareness
of Divine Laws. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." (al- Hujraat 49/13)

This verse destroys the basis of separatism in Islam; other than the separation
between the Muslim and the kuffar.

Nationalism is based on giving authenticity to ethnical or civic units. It

divides human society into limited and independent units according to
geographical boundaries or factors of race, language, history, political
organization, ideologies, creed etc., and considers all those others who are
outside these units as aliens, and most of the time encourages hostility
between them. Nationalism does not address the whole of humanity, but
restricts itself to national units in which the nations are separated according
to ideologies, ethnicities, culture, territory, history, language etc and its goal
is the establishment of nation/states, not a universal society. In contemporary
terms it is merely loyalty to the state.

But Islam addresses all mankind as a single unit and one entity. Its system is
not specifed for a certain race, special region, language, heritage, culture etc
but for the whole human society with the ideology of tawhid. Those who
accept and act upon this ideology are regarded as equals and brothers, and
have equal rights and duties in devotion, politics, economy and social life.

The ultimate goal of Islam is to establish a universal monotheistic society

which goes far beyond geographical, racial, lingual and cultural boundaries,
and joins them all in one community. A nation based on Islam. Islam
condemns the division and nationalism of mankind on the basis of blood,
territory, culture, ethnicity and language in national and/or racial units, and
grants no authenticity to these differences. “And who turns away from the
religion of Abraham but such as debase their souls with folly? Him We chose
and rendered pure in this world: And he will be in the Hereafter in the ranks
of the Righteous.” (al-Baqara 2/130)

A modern day nationalist confnes his vision to interests of the ideology

behind his nation-state, and believes in the limitation of others; whereas
Islam gives its message to all mankind, and judges all impartially without the
shortsighted tribal attitude of nationalists. Nationalism usually encourages
one to serve only one's own society, and to desire its greatness and seek its
interests, but Islam teaches each individual to think in term of the whole
humanity. Differences in race, tribe, nation and family have no legal
authenticity and they are not criteria of superiority and inferiority. They are
only the means of facilitating human relations “O you men! Surely We have
created you of a male and a female and made you nations and families that
you may know each other; surely the most honorable of you with God is the
one among you most careful of his duty.” (al-Hujraat 49/13)

Thus, divisions into nations and groups is for the purpose of knowing one
another better, not for taking pride, showing love or hate, seeking superiority
or engaging in disputes. The Qur’an considers the division of mankind into
political and ethnic units as a crime resulting in human misery and calling for
divine punishment: “... or to confuse you in sects and to make some of you
taste the violence of one another.” (al-Anam 6/65)

Islam condemns the division of mankind and assumption of superiority on

the basis of land or blood as a great crime of Pharaoh: “Now Pharaoh had
exalted himself in the land and had divided its inhabitants into sects...” (al-
Qasas 28/4)

RasulAllah (saw) has repeatedly declared that human beings form a single
Ummah and there is no authenticity in territorial or racial superiority. He
says: “There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab, or of a non-Arab
over an Arab, or of a white man over a black man, or of a black man over a
white man, except in terms of taqwa. The people are from Adam, and Adam
is from dust.” (Tirmidhi)

Thus RasulAllah (saw) declared explicitly that no blood relationship can be

the means of pride or superiority. The only criteria are faith, conduct and
proper behavior. He (saw) emphasized the Muslim unity and negated its
division into limited racial and ethnic units. The powerful combat of Islam
against racism can be understood from this fact that RasulAllah (saw)
appointed Usamah ibn Zayd, an Ethiopian slave, as commander in chief and
as superior to such generals as Ubaydullah al Jarrah and other Qureish and
Ansar leaders which meant the casting aside of racial and tribal criteria.

According to the ayah in the Qur’an, the Muslim have a universal mission to
set up a single nation or a single society which rejects all that which is not
Islam and is not limited to tribal, ethnic or cultural units which only think of
their own interests. Islam invites all mankind to unite under one fag: “You
are the best of the nations raised up for the beneft of men: you enjoin what is
right and forbid the wrong.” (al-i Imran 3/110)

“And thus We have made you a medium (just) nation that you may be the
bearers of witness to the people” (al- Baqarah 2/143)

It is clear that Islam and its goal, mission and vision is totally opposite of
those of today’s modern nationalism. While modern nationalism believes the
country to be the focus of loyalty, Islam believes God and His religion should
be this focus. As Allah says: “Judgment is only Allah's; He has commanded
that you shall not serve aught but him." (Yusuf 12; 40)

Modern day nationalism aims at having man given the greatest share of his
loyalty and affection to the state, and to even subordinate the loyalty to Allah
to the love of the nation. This in itself is a type of polytheism. Praise is only
due to Allah and when given to anything else, it is shirk.

"Have you not seen those who assert that they believe in what has been
revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They desire to summon
one another to the judgment of the Shaitan, though they were commanded to
deny him, and the Shaitan desires to lead them astray into a remote error.”
(an-Nisa 4/60)

The verses of the Qur’an destroys the foundation of nationalism, based on

geographical boundaries, race, language, ethnicity etc, and shows clearly that
belief is the basis of man's posture. There is only one party that is important
and that is Allah's party. The society which was established by RasulAllah
(saw) at Medina, was based on belief, in which all other attachments of
territory, blood, race, etc. were negated. In the battles of Badr, Uhud and
Khandaq, RasulAllah (saw) fought side by side with the Ansars of Madina
who were considered aliens. In these battles, territory and blood were
subordinated to belief. Hudhaifa attacked his father; Abu-Bakr drew his
sword upon his son Abdurrahman; Abbas bin Abdulmuttalib, the Prophet's
uncle and Aqil his cousin, and Abul-As were taken prisoner. Umar (ra) even
proposed that all the prisoners whose guilt was proved and had not
surrendered, should be killed, and every Muslim should personally kill the
prisoner who was a kinsman. Umar himself killed his uncle in battle. That is
how the bonds of kinship were broken for the sake of belief. This is the basis
of Islamic nationality, and thus the nation of the faithful believers takes
shape, a nation in which blood relationship is nothing as compared to belief.

When Banu-Qaynaqa of the Jewish tribe of Madina rose in revolt against the
Muslims and were suppressed, RasulAllah (saw) sent Ubada Ibn Samit (ra) as
an arbitrator. He was from the Khazraj tribe and he unhesitatingly issued the
verdict that the Banu Qaynaqa must be banished from Medina. After the
treachery of Banu Qurayda who were confederates of the tribe of Aws,
RasulAllah (saw) sent as arbitrator Sa'ed-bin Muadh, a general of Aws. He
condemned to death all the men of Banu Qurayda for their great treason.
These show that in an Islamic society, only belief is important. Nationalism
and Islam can only exist together in the same society only when the sole
emphasis and ideology is the Islamic aqidah.
Nationalism is accompanied by a fanaticism which considers others inferior,
and boasts only of its own history and ancestors. This extreme sentiment
causes one to love one's country and nationality, and discourages one to be
benevolent towards others. One feels that one is perfect, while others are
imperfect and useless. Simple attachment to the tribe is not fanaticism.
Fanaticism is supporting kinsfolk and compatriots in goodness or badness, in
right and wrong and in all cases. Such a person is involved in the wrath of
Allah.

It is this fanaticism of ignorance which makes people and nations seek

domination out of their egocentrism. The history of Western nationalistic
countries in the last hundred years shows this fanaticism of the 20th Century.

A German shouts: “Germany above all”; and Mussolini declares: “Love of

Italy is the highest religion.” America claims: “The United States are selected
by God,” and an Englishman believes that «ruling the world is the God-
given right of the British.”

A special peculiarity of contemporary nationalism is this same pride in one's

past history that which Islam calls paganism. Modern day nationalism and
Islam have two opposite ideologies, and independent goals. Man by nature
can follow only one ideology and stick affectionately to it. If a person believes
that he has two ideologies, one of them will be active and living, while the
other, is passive and dead. Islam has a special ideology, and if this ideology
becomes the bases and only means of its nationalism, taking on a mission of a
borderless world, its language Arabic, its aim destroying bateel and
establishing haqq on the entire face of the world, its laws being the Qur’an
and sunnah; only will then nationalism become a permitted ideology within
Islam.

A human being cannot follow two live ideologies at once. Regarding the
point of nationalism, when we mean by that exaggerated patriotism and
blind practices that are run against Islamic brotherhood and the unity of
those who share the same contemporary ideologies within the nation-state,
this is not permissible. Let’s recall the difference between patriotism the
defense of the specifc qualities of one’s own country (nation-state) and
nationalism putting the specifc qualities of one’s own nation-state above
those of the others. If the bond of territory, language, culture, ethnicity, belief
and modernity will only become Islam; if Islam as a whole within itself will
be the only and the entire entity of nationalism both believed and lived in
which people are grouped together on the basis of Aqidah or faith and only
defend their creed tawhid against those who are not Muslim, when it is like
this nationalism does not continue to be a ideology frowned upon. It is Islam
that provides the set of rules, regulations, and instructions according to
which man lives and which he refers to in order to solve his problems. This
bond only takes into account the Aqidah and nothing but that belief. Color,
race and gender are irrelevant. This is the type of bond found within Islam
and the only type of nationalism it can survive with.

The following is what Sayyid Qutb has to say regarding the nationalism of
the Islamic state: “The people who are really chosen by God are the Muslim
community which has gathered under Allah's banner without regard to
differences of races, nations, colors and countries. “You are the best
community raised for the good of mankind. You enjoin what is good and
forbid what is evil and you believe in God." (al-I Imran 3/110) This is that
community in the frst generation of which there were Abu Bakr from Arabia,
Bilal from Abyssinia, Suhaib from Syria, Salman from Persia, and their
brothers in faith. The generations which followed them were similar.
Nationalism here is belief, homeland here is Dar-ul-Islam, the ruler here is
Allah, and the constitution here is the Qur'an. This noble conception of
homeland, of nationality and of relationship should become imprinted on the
hearts of those who invite others toward Allah. They should remove all
infuences of Jahiliyyah which make this concept impure and which may
have the slightest element of hidden shirk, such as shirk in relation to
homeland, or in relation to race or nation, or in relation to lineage or material
interests. All these have been mentioned by Allah (swt) in one verse, in which
He has placed them in one side of the balance and the belief and its
responsibilities in the other side, and invites people to choose: "Say: if your
fathers and your sons and your brothers and your spouses and your relatives,
and the wealth which you have acquired, and the commerce in which you
fear decline, and the homes in which you take delight are dearer to you than
Allah and His Messenger and striving in His cause, then wait until Allah
brings His judgment; and God does not guide the rebellious people." (at-
Tawba 9/24)” (Milestones)

Civic nationalism is the type of nationalism which is composed of all those

who subscribe to the nation’s political creed regardless of race, color, creed,
gender, language or ethnicity. It sees the nation as a community of equal,
rights-bearing citizens, united in attachment to a shared political practices
and values. And thus nation–hood being a part of a nation has become
determined by terms of citizenship and not ethnicity (except in Germany).
Ethnic nationalism claims that the deepest attachments of individuals are
inherited not chosen as in civic nationalism. It is a form of unity conducted
with the interests of an ethnic majority. It could be said that it is based on the
ideology of trust; trust in the one whom only carries the same blood.

Therefore bonding through the Aqidah and Emaan is a permanent bond

because it arises from a conviction pertaining to the meaning of life. The
creed is never infuenced by color, race, and language, love of a land or local
issues. Hence, it is the true basis for permanent unity. Islam calls for this type
of unity. It asks for loyalty to the deen of Allah (swt) rather than to the tribes.
Ties between the Muslims were therefore based upon the Aqidah of Islam.
All Muslims were treated exactly the same, irrespective of their family
background, and anyone who declared and acted upon the Shahadah "La
ilaha illaAllah Muhammad RasulAllah" became part of the Muslim Ummah.
We are Muslims only when in all aspects of life, we have an Islamic vision.
Tawhid and Islam mean liberation and freedom, freedom from all chains and
bonds. These differences and distinctions cannot be regarded as divisive
factors; rather it is their coming together and getting to know one another
that give birth to material and spiritual development. In political sense
nationalism is the belief that the world’s people are divided into nations and
that each of these nations have the right of self determination.

In the frst century of the Islamic era the principles and objectives of Islamic
tawhid were conveyed to the world in such clear and unambiguous terms
that all the civilized people of those days, with all their awareness, embraced
these teachings. Very soon an Islamic nation developed or rather the Islamic
cosmopolitan society came into being. But this unity disappeared soon and
divisions emerged, because the men who wielded power could not or did not
wish to understand the real meaning of Islamic objectives. The Islamic
international movement was perceived as an Arab empire and caliphate - a
perception which was a fagrant violation of Islamic objectives. Because of
this, the unity which was achieved was soon squandered, a defeat in whose
wake appeared many upheavals, weaknesses and deviations, until, and
subsequently the Muslims went into a long and deep slumber. Slowly yet
steadily emerged leaders who were overwhelmed with land, possessions,
and moreover with bateel. Haqq and tawhid were left aside in pride of
governing and taking over that not even the masses could change anything
because the masses had already gathered in groups of separatist ideologies
and those who didn’t were smothered in ignorance and too blind to see what
had been going around. Nations of race, culture, territory, ethnicity, language
and modernity came to rise within the Islamic state and Islam was left aside
to take the ride in the back seat. The reborn of cultural, ethnic, civil, racial and
territorial nationalism within the Islamic state itself ruptured the unity of
aqidah only because the aqidah of tawhid had already been forgotten,
ignored and replaced with bateel.

The Muslim Ummah was never confronted with such a dilemma in the past
during Islamic rule. They never suffered from disunity, widespread
oppression, nation-states, stagnation in science and technology etc.

The illah which may cause having/being a citizenship is kufr

At this point I would like to turn to the topic and take in hand the illah which
may cause having/being a citizenship is kufr.

We can examine the objectionable issues of this issue under two main
headings:
A) To be a member of a taghout association; to make intisaab
(dedication/being related to/engagement/kinship)

Normally to be a member of a taghout association, to make intisaab to them

is kufr. Just like it is kufr to have made intisaab to the military establishment
of the kuffar. Other examples would be things such as being member of the
democratic parties, to be a member of the religious organizations, to be an
employee (i.e. government offcial) of any unit of the taghout state etc. When
this is taken into consideration it seems being a citizen or having citizenship
of the taghout state could be something objectionable which must be kept
distant from. However the situation of this case is different from the given
examples. One must distinguish the difference between the employees
(government offcials) serving the taghout; in the unit which is a part of the
state of the taghout and those who receive this service from these taghout
offcials.

For example there is a difference in the ranks of the offcials working in/for
the banks. The frst are the units (employees) of the bank, the second are only
those who are served (who receive service); the customers. Along with this
both of them are registered within the bank because in order to serve and be
served (in most cases) one must register.

This difference is also similar to the difference between the rank of the
teacher and the student. The teachers are units which constitute the schools.
Yet the students although registered in the schools, are not units of the
school. Wallahu alam the situation of the citizens (of nation states) is not like
the frst mentioned group (the offcials/ teachers) they are like the second
group of individuals which are those who beneft from the services.

Those who work in the government branches are among the

employees/offcials of the state, they are the units which keep the state alive
and for this reason due to having made intisaab to an establishment of the
taghout they perform kufr. An example for this would be those who work for
the parliament, any ministry, the municipality, the courts, the police, or the
military. However the matter of citizenship is still doubtful in some cases, for
this reason it is still best to try and keep distant from it. The methods of
keeping distant could be by not calling oneself a citizen, by not making ones
offspring citizens, by not using citizenship cards, not obtaining passports and
by not using them. The best is to go and live in the mountains and to tussle
with the sheeps; as this being much khair had been mentioned in the
following known hadith.

Narrated from Hudhaifa bin al-Yaman (ra) that he stated: “The people used
to ask RasulAllah about the good but I used to ask him about the evil lest I
should be overtaken by them. So I said, ‘O RasulAllah! We were living in
ignorance and in an (extremely) worst atmosphere, then Allah brought to us
this good (i.e., Islam); will there be any evil after this good?’ He (saw) said,
‘Yes.’ I said, 'Will there be any good after that evil?’ He (saw) replied, ‘Yes,
but it will be tainted (not pure.)’ I asked, ‘What will be its taint?’ He (saw)
replied, ‘(There will be) some people who will guide others not according to
my tradition? You will approve of some of their deeds and disapprove of
some others.’ I asked, ‘Will there be any evil after that good?’ He (saw)
replied, ‘Yes, (there will be) some people calling at the gates of the (Hell) Fire,
and whoever will respond to their call, will be thrown by them into the (Hell)
Fire.’ I said, ‘O RasulAllah! Will you describe them to us?’ He (saw) said,
‘They will be from our own people and will speak our language.’ I said,
‘What do you order me to do if such a state should take place in my life?’ He
(saw) said, ‘Stick to the group of Muslims and their imam.’ I said, ‘If there is
neither a group of Muslims nor an imam?’ He (saw) said, ‘Then turn away
from all those sects even if you were to bite (eat) the roots of a tree till death
overtakes you while you are in that state’.” (Bukhari)

“Narrated from Abu Sa'ed al-Khudri (ra) that RasulAllah (saw) said: “There
will come a time when the best property of a Muslim will be sheep which he
will take to the tops of mountains and the places of rainfall so as to fee with
his religion from the affictions.” (Bukhari)

B) Ones acceptance or non acceptance of the haqimiyyah and constitution of

the taghout. The description of citizenship being kufr or not kufr.

Normally the term citizenship has a description. If that description is kufr

than the acceptance of it will also be kufr. For example if the word
“citizenship” means “those who accept the haqimiyyah of the state” than the
one who states “I am a citizen” will have said “I am the slave of the state”
and thus will have performed kufr. Yet in most cases the description of
citizenship is “those who live in a state (daar) and who beneft from the
services of the state.”

O f course in the constitution and laws the duties of the citizens have been
stated by the taghout. For example it could be to attend and perform military
services, to vote in democracy or to attend to jury duty and take part in a
court as a jury etc. However these duties are not included in the description
of citizenship; they are only duties which are presented or even enforced in
some cases to the citizens, meaning the government enforces them as time
and conditions permit ;however Allah’u alam the kufr duties are not inserted
into the meaning of citizenship. If there is such description the acceptance of
it, signing it or showing any sort of sign which means the acceptance of it will
be kufr. Likewise this type of uttering words of kufr or oath taking is
requested from those who become citizens of kafr states by request later in
their lives (not through right of birth). For this reason in most of the kafr
states, it is without doubt kufr to obtain citizenship and it is very diffcult to
dodge the kufr.
Today I do not know if there is any state on earth which would give
citizenship or aman to a Muslim. However if Allah permits and if the
Muslimeen increase in number a mass hijrah can be actualised and maybe
with the agreements made between the kuffar and muslimeen according to
the Islamic hukm; citizenship and the receivable of aman can be possible.

Again it is important to repeat that having citizenship or being a citizen is not

kufr itself however once the conditions require or suggest the obligation of
acceptance/performance of intisaab or the acceptance/performance of any
kufr without mutilating it to become a citizen and remaining a citizen in such
case is/becomes kufr. However the identity cards or passports obtained in
most cases do not necessitate the acceptance of all laws and regulations of the
state, shown respect to the state or support to the state and if it is given for
the determination of people within certain borders then obtaining such card
or passport and carrying it will not be kufr. The reason is because this is only
a right of citizenship given by the taghout state to those who are its citizens.

In the states of the taghout again in most cases obtaining identifcation does
not mean the acceptance of the constitution of that state. It is because in all
states there is always those who criticize its constitution, who speak and
believe against it. Furthermore there are those who even dispraise and do not
follow them. If obtaining identifcation cards meant the acceptance of the
laws of the taghout those who showed any disregard to this would
immediately be stripped of his citizenship. However in practice no such thing
is mentionable.

The acceptance of the laws of the state and carrying the identifcation card are
separate things. Each and every state would want all those who live within
its borders to obey and respect its laws. Those who rebel against these laws
regardless of his status whether a citizen, immigrant or alien etc. he will be
punished or given a punishment according to the laws and regulations of that
state. As a consequence whether an individual accepts its laws or rejects
them, whether he likes it or not; the taghout will punish those who are within
the borders of its state and who act in opposition to it regardless of him being
a foreigner or a native.

In conclusion: We can say that if an individual praises his kafr tribe (nation
in this case) or has obtained an identifcation card with the feel of special
pride from the identity card the taghout has given him; this individual is
kafr. Or else being or having citizenship itself is not kufr per se. It is
important to be able to distinguish the differences in the matter. Some state
they had not personally obtained their citizenships that their parents had
obtained it for them (i.e. as a child) and try to explain that citizenship is kufr
yet they had not been the ones to make this choice of obtaining the
citizenship and thus claim they are not kafr; this is a great mistake. An
individual who believes that citizenship is kufr, cannot even carry the
identity card for a split second which is the symbol of being a citizen.

However as mentioned above we do not believe that citizenship is kufr itself.

For in the era of RasulAllah (saw) there had been Muslims who were citizens
of states such as Byzantium, and Iran and in the later eras also. The scholars
had not requested for those who live in daru’l harb by all means to abandon
their citizenships in order to be accepted as Muslim. On the contrary they had
discussed whether hijrah was fardh or mustahab for those who are able to
live their deen within the state they live in.

Ibn Taymiyyah stated in his fatawa of Mardin: “All praise is due to Allah, the
blood and the wealth of the Muslims is inviolable, whether they reside in the
land of Mardin or any other land. And giving assistance to those who go
outside of the shari'ah of Islam is also prohibited, whether it is the people of
Mardin or other than them. If the person residing there is not able to
establish/implement his Deen, then it is fardh (obligatory) upon him to
emigrate from that land, and if not then emigration is mustahab (highly
recommended) but not fardh.” (Fatawa 28/240)

In the following ayah the reference is to the Muslimeen who are either
residents of the Daru’l-Islam or to those who live in the Daru’l-Harb but
against whom there is no proof of actual participation in the hostile activities
with the enemies of Islam. It is a well known fact that during the era of
RasulAllah (saw) and afterwards there were many people who had embraced
Islam and yet, because of genuine diffculties, were living among tribes
hostile to Islam. And there were many others who stayed in daru’l-harb or
daru’l-dhimma due to wordly affairs such as being a spy of the Islamic state
or just a merchant etc. And the ayah is about those Muslimeen who lived in
daru’l-harb and had inadvertently been killed by Muslims while attacking a
hostile tribe. As seen in the ayah it is prescribed that if the victim was a
resident of the Daru’l-Harb the killer is only required to emancipate a slave. If
the victim was a resident of a non-Muslim country which had treaty relations
with an Islamic state the killer is required to emancipate a slave and also to
pay blood-money and so on.

“Never should a believer kill a believer; but (If it so happens) by mistake,

(Compensation is due): If one (so) kills a believer, it is ordained that he
should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family,
unless they remit it freely. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with
you, and he was a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (is enough). If he
belonged to a people with whom ye have treaty of Mutual alliance,
compensation should be paid to his family, and a believing slave be freed.
For those who fnd this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two
months running: by way of repentance to Allah: for Allah hath all knowledge
and all wisdom.” (an-Nisa 4/92)
Qurtubi sums up the views of ulama regarding the matter in his tafsir under
the chapter “The hukm of the Mu’min killed in the states of the kuffar” by giving
explanations on the ayah: “In the command of Allah ta’ala it is stated: "If the
deceased belonged to a people at war with you, and he was a believer..." the
matter taken in hand is regarding the mu’min that is killed in the state of the
kuffar or during war with the kuffar believing he (the mu’min) was one of
the kuffar. The meaning of this according to Ibn Abbas, Qatada, As Suddi,
Ikrimah, Mujahid and an Nahai is: If this killed individual along with having
iman had been a mu’min situated among the kafr tribe who were "a people
at war with you” there is no need to pay diyah (blood money) for him. Only
because of his murder a slave is needed to be freed as kaffarah. This is the
much known view of Malik. Abu Hanifah had aslo said the same. In this
situation there are 2 reasons the payment of diyaah is dropped. The frst
reason is that the money is not paid because the wali of the deceased are
kuffar. By paying diyaah to them it is not right to have become means of their
gain in strength (monetarily in this case). The second reason is although the
he had iman but did not make hijrah the reverence (respect to) of this
individual is only a little. Also for this reason there is no diyaah. Allah ta’ala
stated: “As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of
protection to them until they come into exile." (al-Anfal 8/72)

Some state that it is suffcient to see the reason that the necessity of diyaah is
dropped because the wali of the deceased are kafr. Whether the killing is
done among the muslimeen mistakenly, whether it is done while among his
tribe and not having performed hijrah, whether he has made hijrah yet
returned back to his tribe, the compensation is only the freeing of a slave
therefore paying diyaah is not in question. Hense paying compensation to the
kuffar can not be sahih. Yet if it had been necessary to pay diyaah it would
have been necessary to pay infavor of bayt’ul mal and upon bayt’ul mal.
However in such place the necessity of diyaah can not be in question even if
the killing takes place in daru’l Islam. This is the view of Shaaf, also Awzai,
as Sawri and Abu Sawr also have this view. According to the frst view if a
Mu’min is killed in daru’l Islam and if his tribe (wali, close ones) remains in
daru’l harb in this case the compensation must be paid to the bayt’ul mal and
it would necesitate kafaarah. I say this following narration recorded from
Usama in the Sahih of Muslim is also in this meaning: “Usama b. Zaid said:
RasulAllah (saw) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat of Juhaina in
the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: la ilaha illaAllah, I attacked
him with a spear. It once occurred to me and I talked about it to RasulAllah
(saw). RasulAllah (saw) said: Did he profess la ilaha illaAllah, and even then
you killed him? I said: RasulAllah (saw), he made a profession of it out of the
fear of the weapon. RasulAllah (saw) observed: Did you tear his heart in
order to fnd out whether it had professed or not?” (Bukhari; Muslim; Abu
Dawud; Ahmad, Musnad) Due to this the Prophet did not command the the
implementing of qisas nor the payment of diyaah. It had also been narrated
by Usama that he had said: RasulAllah (saw) later on requested maghfrah
for me 3 times and commanded ‘free a slave’ to me. However he did not
command qisas or diyaah.” (Tafsir)

Having citizenship from countries which you had not been born in is also not
prohibited however there are countries such as the USA, Canada etc where
one must announce obeying and accepting the kufr laws of the country and
has to be present in the oath taking ceremony while obtaing this citizenship.

These actions are kufr and a Muslim can not announce that he obeys and
accepts the kufr law of the king, queen, democracy etc. In the same manner a
Muslim can not be present where people are taking oath of adherence to the
kafr government. Any word of kufr on the applications may be mutilated
but a Muslim is not allowed to take place in such ceremony of oaths.

Wallahu alam…

I ask Allah (swt) to guide us all and make our hearts pure…

Driver’s Licences

When it comes to the matter of driver’s licences as there is no evidence that

obtaining a driver’s licence and using a driver’s licence is kufr we also did not
come across any evidence that during the procedure of obtaining this
certifcate there is any contract containing kufr etc.

Regarding the relationship between the driver’s licence and the identifcation
card we could say the following: today the driver’s licences are also used and
accepted as identifcation. The hukm of the identifcation card is linked to the
hukm of citizenship. Now citizenship can be described as “all those born to
the mother/father who is the citizen of the ‘x’ state is all the citizen of the ‘x’
state” in the constitution. According to this description as citizenship is not
kufr itself the carrying of the identifcation card which also certifes ones
citizenship is not kufr.

Especially when these certifcates have symbols such as the fag of the kufr
state on them although they are only carried in the pocket without reverence
to it this only increases the doubts. Now the driver’s licences are also given to
the non citizens (in most cases) meaning it is not a symbol of citizenship. The
driver’s licences being accepted as identifcation is not because it is related to
the status of the individual within the state it is only a decision made and
accepted by the administrator of the state and this is most likely because they
contain personal identifcation information. For this reason in comparison to
the identifcation card it is much less doubtful. By mutilating kufr
representing symbols and expressions most of these doubts will be rid.
(Allahu alam)

Passport

As far as we know there is nothing wrong with having a passport unless

there are words of kufr on the applications which should be mutilated before
signing. Without mutilating any paper which contains words of kufr the form
or paper can not be signed. Using passports is not regarded as a type of
nationalism to the taghout state because the purpose of it is simply to identify
a person and the country which he/she is a citizen of. If anyone uses the
passport for the purpose of boasting and acting superior to others, or to
express national/tribal pride of the taghout state he/she is a citizen of then
there is no doubt this is something blameworthy and an evil act that Islam
has prohibited. This act of his/her could be haram or it could be kufr
depending on the manner he/she carries this out.

The other point I would like to mention regarding passports is, that I saw one
passport which had a brief announcement on the front inner page which
stated: "the ministiry of foreign affairs (of taghout and the taghout requests in
the name of the taghout) all those whom it may concern to allow the bearer to
pass freely without let or hindrance and to afford the bearer such asistance
and protection as may be necessary." This statements draws the lines of aman
(crossing/passing/entering the borders and residing and protection of life
and belongings) and therefore it seems there is no harm inshaAllah. Wallahu
alam

Civil registered marriage certifcate

It is kufr to have a civil registered marriage certifcate due to the fact that the
authority which marries the Muslim belongs solely to the Muslim.

It is kufr to exalt a kafr in a position that he/she marries a Muslim. This is

kufr and even if one makes some tricks to get this certifcate or mutilates the
agreement it does not affect the hukm of it being kufr.

These certifcates usually include both the kufr of giving walayah to the
kuffar over the Muslim and also it is a ceremony which contains kufr. Even if
someone is able to skip the ceremony it still is kufr to obtain such certifcate
which is signed by both parties (the bride/groom and the marriage offcial)
and shows clearly that a kafr had married a Muslim (in this case).

This is not acceptable other than the person in coercion who rejects this right
after his situation has changed; obtaining this certifcate is kufr itself.
The authority of the marriage of two Muslims only belongs to another
Muslim. This authority can not be given to the kuffar. Hence marrying a
couple is a possession and superiority meaning it is walayah. The kafr is
despicable with his kufr. Giving him such authority would mean exalting
him after Allah had degraded him; it would mean giving him the right of
possession over the Muslim and taking him as wali. The hukm is given into
the hands of the kafr and it rests upon the decision he will make. If he states
he will marry; he will join the couple in marriage; if he states he will not
marry; he will not join the couple in marriage. He is the one in this case
making the ultimate decision. Therefore this action is taking a kafr as wali.

When it comes to the issue of obtaining a civil marriage certifcate without

going through this procedure it is words of kufr to state ‘a kafr married us’
hence its meaning will be no other than “we have made a kafr wali”;
meaning a kafr married us, means we have made a kafr wali.

What is usually written in the the certifcate is the names of the couple who
got married; the name of the offcial who married the couple or the registrar;
the date they were married; the registrars offce they were married in etc.

Those who obtain this certifcate obtain a signed certifcate validating they
had made a kafr a wali and this is kufr. For this reason after an individual
has become Muslim under no circumstance can he obtain and use such
certifcate. Regardless of the method he obtains the certifcate with; the use of
the certifcate afterwards is the same as the individual obtaining it through
the normal method. Those who carry the fear of Allah will submit to this and
will not fall in deviation by trying to validate this as not being kufr.

The meaning of wali in marriage is the following: The authorization of

marriage belongs to the wali, without the permission of the wali the marriage
is not sahih. Meaning in reality the one who performs the marriage is the
wali: “Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among
yourselves, male or female: if they are in poverty, Allah will give them means
out of His grace: for Allah encompasseth all, and he knoweth all things.” (an-
Nur 24/32)

Qurtubi stated: “For this reason it had been accepted with ijma that the slave
married only with the permission of his master.” (Tafsir)

For this reason the position of the offcer of the marriage is the same as the
wali who permits the marriage in Islam. Both positions have the same illah
(reason) that is having authorization over the marriage and the right of
giving permission to the marriage. Therefore giving this right to a kafr offcer
is equal to exalting him to the position of wali over a/couple Muslim. And
we all know that the conditions of wali necessitates that wali of a Muslim to
be a Muslim. And there is ijma upon the issue that the wali of a Muslim to be
a Muslim.

Even if all these conditions do not meet still we know that it is prohibited for
a Muslim to give right over him to a kafr. Regarding this Allah (swt)
commands: “And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to
triumphs) over the believers.” (an-Nisa 4/141)

Without doubt exalting a kafr to a position which he would have the right to
give or not give permission to the marriages of the Muslim is giving him
superiority over the Muslim. At the same time this is a degradation of the
Muslim against the kuffar and giving a way to triumph over the Muslimeen.
It is because now in this case the kafr offcer has a right not to register the
marriage due to some laws of the state (gender/age/missing document etc).

If the deed itself was not kufr then applying for it would not be kufr either.

For example if a state loans a certain amount of money without charging any
interest then it would not be prohibited to apply for this service of loan. The
reason for this is that benefting from this service or taking a loan without
paying any interest is not prohibited per se. The application of regarding this
matter is not walayah; whether they deny the application or accept it. This is
due to the fact that there are things which are included in the tasarruf of the
kafr; and things which are not.

In things which permission has been given for the kuffar having tasarruf
over, one can apply and/or request permission. However in things which
permission has not been given in regards to the kuffar having tasarruf over
one can not apply hense these areas are areas which are not included under
the authority of the kuffar.

For example; the properties and belongings of the kuffar are under the
tassaruf of the kuffar meaning it is permissible to show acceptance of this
tassaruf. However in the business of the Muslim meaning in matters which
only concern the Muslimeen the authorisation of tasarruf only belongs to the
Muslimeen. For example to lead in salah, to be amir is within the area which
its tasarruf belongs only to the muslimeen, the kuffar can not enter it.
Whoever is to give the kuffar this tasarruf which can only be given to the
muslimeen will have taken that kafr as a wali.

Let’s say there is a disagreement among two Muslims or between a Muslim

and a kafr only the muslimeen have the authority to judge or arbitrate in the
matter. Whoever gives this authority to a kafr he will have taken him as a
wali.

However for example applying to the kuffar to get a loan or to apply to

obtain protection and take refuge is within the authority of the kafr because
it is the property of the kafr and he will be the one to give hukm regarding it.
When we apply for the loan he will either accept it or reject it. When he gives
hukm in regards to his money this does not carry the meaning that he has
given hukm in the private matters of the muslimeen.

For this reason it is not walayah. When it comes to the matter of marriage this
is an area which concerns only the muslimeen and is under the tassaruf of the
muslimeen, the kuffar do not have a place nor will permission be given for
their tasarruf. However if two kafrs want to get married in an area which
concerns the kuffar, tassaruf regarding marriage among their own can be
given to them.

If you have understood that the authority of marrying a Muslim couple

belongs only to the muslimeen than know that the kuffar can not be given
permission to perform this act nor can the Muslim apply to them to perform
this act. This is an amal which the kuffar can not perform and authority
which can not be given to them either. It will be a mistake to compare this
issue with the issue of bonds and vouchers. Because the bond and/or
voucher itself is not kufr itself it only becomes kufr when there is kufr within
the contract. When there is no kufr in the agreement in this case it is not kufr.
However the application to the courts is not like this. Even if there might not
be a trace of kufr on the paper written application of the courts the applying
itself to the courts of the taghout is kufr. The procedure of applying for civil
marriages and its licenses are the same.

Statues and Portraits of the Taghouts and fags of the taghouti states

It is kufr to hang up portraits, statues of taghout (who are enemies of Islam)

and those which represent the states of the taghout. The reason for this is;
hanging portraits, having statues or other symbols/articles which represent
the taghout are showing respect to the taghout.

In the same manner it is kufr to hang the fags of the kuffar states in the
homes or in the offces which belong to the muslimeen. Hanging the fags or
other articles which are symbols that represent the kuffar state are the same
as hanging the portraits of the taghouts. The ceremony of standing in silence
for remembrance of the kuffar is also kufr for the same reason. The reason
behind these acts being kufr is because it is showing respect, veneration and
giving high value to the kuffar and all those things which symbolise them,
which surely they do not deserve. Clearly this is kufr.
The Ruling on the usage of monetary items (i.e. money, gold, cheques etc)
which have symbols of taghout on them

Here we are not discussing the monetary system of today and the issue, that
the paper money and the used coins don't have any value except the paper
which is used. We are only discussing the symbols and pictures on them.
Each state has their own money which is made from paper or various types
of metals and has its own value. On these papers there are pictures of the
taghouts, or a respected kafr and/or other symbols of the taghouti states. It
is clear that although the kuffar have put these pictures or symbols on the
banknotes out of showing respect to their kafr ancestors, it does not
necessarily mean that everyone who has this money or everyone who uses
this money shows respect to the pictures or the other symbols of the kuffar. It
is a much known fact that the enemy states also use their enemy’s currency. If
it was showing respect and giving a higher value to the kuffar or its symbols
no enemy state would have had/used the banknotes of their own enemies.

This is one of the most signifcant attribute which refers that having/using
this currency is due to its economical value and not for the respect towards
the pictures or the symbols of the taghout and the kuffar states.

Money can be teared up, rubbed off, could fall down to the ground, dirtied,
folded without respect, even could be sat on. Therefore it is not possible to
come to a conclusion and state: Everyone who has or uses the currency is
showing respect to the pictures/symbols of the taghout/kuffar state. No one
would be punished due to his tearing up/rubbing off/sitting on the
currency. Showing respect to the owner of the pictures depends on the
person. Some may hate and curse. Some other may love and show respect
and others may worship. Pictures are not presented on the banknotes to lead
people into showing respect or worship. For this reason in general it would
not be kufr to have or use these banknotes. It is because any object that the
respect is directed towards won’t be thrown away, folded, crumbled, tossed
without respect, without any special attention or without giving importance,
it won’t be circulated in the hands… None of these are the signs of showing
respect.

In the history of Islam, Abdulmalik b. Marwan is the frst one who issued
money. From the beginning of Islam until today individuals of the Muslim
ummah have had/used/exchanged the banknotes and other valuable goods.

There isn’t any narration regards RasulAllah (saw), the sahaba (ra) and the
Muslimeen after them did not have/use/exchange the banknotes, coins or
other valuable goods that has pictures/symbols of the taghout/kafr state.

Using a banknote because of its value is different than showing respect to the
owner of the picture on it. The Magean worshipped fre. However everyone
who benefts from the fre is not a Magean. If solely benefting from fre was
equal to worshipping it, then neither RasulAllah (saw) nor would the sahaba
(ra) have benefted from it. It is permissible to beneft from the fre with the
intentions of merely beneftting however Islam cuts off the ways which may
cause exalting the fre and prohibited to show respect to the fre or directing
ibadaah towards it; pray salaat, make dua towards the fre etc.

Jury duty

In some of the nation-states it is an obligation of its citizens to take place in

jury duty within the states courts when they are chosen by the state and are
served its letter. Jury duty is servicing as a juror in a legal proceeding. When
a person is called for jury duty, that service is usually not optional, in which
case, one must attend or face strict penalties and sometimes no penalties at
all. When you attend, you may be asked to serve as a juror in a trial, or you
may be dismissed. This issue is very clear and it is kufr to take a place as the
jury of taghout. The person which takes place in the jury also becomes a
taghout with his/her performance of this. As it is kufr to muhakama ila
taghout, the illah in becoming a jury of the taghout is that the jury in the case
of muhakama ila taghout becomes the taghout itself.

Therefore it is prohibited and kufr to be a part of the court of the taghout. The
jurors are the ones who implement the actual Kufr themselves and they see it
and perform it directly with no ambiguity by their own actions. So a juror
who himself/herself implements a ruling on an individual, which is based on
a secular law, which has been legislated by disbelievers to govern the masses
based on their desires, is a kafr.

Taxes

Every state needs income to exist and provides supplies for necessities. One
of the ways every state gets its income is collecting taxes from its inhabitants,
and tourists etc. These taxes are collected from everyone while trading (on
certain goods and certain amounts) or as a price of usage in exchange of some
types of services such as, water supply, power supply, taxes for automobiles,
houses, garbage disposal etc. It is a fnancial charge which is imposed on the
individuals by a state. There are many different sorts of taxes and usually
consists of direct or indirect taxes. It is described as pecuniary burden laid
upon individuals or property to support the government and it is a payment
exacted by legislative authority.

A tax is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution,

exacted pursuant to government under the name of toll, tribute, tallage,
gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply… When taxes are
not fully paid, civil penalties or criminal penalties may be imposed on the
non-paying entity or individual by the government.

Collected taxes are used for strengthening the state and providing the
services. For this reason the Muslim should refrain themselves to participate
such type of dhulm. The obedience and participation such dhulm willingly or
without any acceptable reason is equal to supporting the kuffar. And this act
is an act of wala which is kufr to show towards kuffar. In most cases taxes are
deducted from pay cheques and paid even before one receives his/her wage.

So in these cases, the payment of tax is not a voluntary act, rather it is an

oppressive seizure of one’s earnings.

However it is permissible for Muslims to insist on a quid pro quo. While

being in a state of stand off and without acceptance of the laws of kuffar,
trying to gain the benefts for Muslims or Islam or merely to prevent from a
bigger dhulm Muslim may pay taxes. The biggest dhulm according to
Muslims today is the lift of the authority of Islam from the earth.

Muslims who live under the authority and states of the kuffar may pay taxes
to re-establish Islam on earth and or when they are threatened with greater
dhulm. In some conditions the Muslim can even offer bribe to a kafr to
prevent a greater dhulm. This act of the Muslim would not be taken in
consideration as supporting the kuffar. It is not kufr to give an economical
compensation to the kuffar due to re-establishing Islam without harming the
aqidah.

Examples of this can be easily found in the sirah of RasulAllah (saw) and his
(saw) noble sahaba (ra). During the battle of Handak RasulAllah (saw)
wanted to offer Ghatafan a third of the dates of Madina on the condition that
they would go back and leave him and his men, so peace was made between
them so for as the writing of a document. RasulAllah (saw) consulted both
Sa'd Ibn Ubadah (ra) and Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh (ra), the leaders of al-Aws and al-
Hazraj, regarding giving the unbelievers one-third of the fruits of Madina in
return of making peace with them. They said. "O RasulAllah, is it a more plan
of you, or a divine order that we should abide by?" He (saw) said, "It is my
plan to protect you against the allied forces of Arabs." Sa'd Ibn Mu'adh said,
"O RasulAllah, we were pagans and those never expected to take anything
from the fruits of Madina. Then, Allah has honored us with Islam, guided us
to Him and granted us dignity by believing in Him and following You. How
could we give them our money! We are in no need of doing so. By Allah, we
will give them nothing but swords, until Allah judges between us and them.
RasulAllah (saw) said: Done according to this?”

And also there is the incident of Suhayb (ra): “When RasulAllah (saw) gave
permission for his followers to migrate to Madinah, Suhayb resolved to go in
the company of RasulAllah (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra). The Quraysh however
found out about his intentions and foiled his plans. They placed guards over
him to prevent him from leaving and taking with him the wealth, the gold
and the silver, which he had acquired through trade. After the departure of
RasulAllah (saw) and Abu Bakr (ra), Suhayb continued to bide his time,
waiting for an opportunity to join them. He remained unsuccessful. The eyes
of his guards were ever alert and watchful. The only way out was to resort to
a stratagem. One cold night, Suhayb pretended he had some stomach
problems and went out repeatedly as if responding to calls of nature. His
captors said one to another: "Don't worry. Al-Laat and al-Uzza are keeping
him busy with his stomach." They became relaxed and sleep got the better of
them. Suhayb quietly slipped out as if he was going to the toilet. He armed
himself, got ready a mount and headed in the direction of Madinah. When
his captors awoke, they realized with a start that Suhayb was gone. They got
horses ready and set out in hot pursuit and eventually caught up with him.
Seeing them approach, Suhayb clambered up a hill. Holding his bow and
arrow at the ready, he shouted: "Men of Quraysh! You know, by Allah, that I
am one of the best archers and my aim is unerring. By Allah, if you come near
me, with each arrow I have, I shall kill one of you. Then I shall strike with my
sword." A Quraysh spokesman responded: By God, we shall not let you
escape from us with your life and money. You came to Makkah weak and
poor and you have acquired what you have acquired..". "What would you
say if I leave you my wealth?" interrupted Suhayb. "Would you get out of my
way?" "Yes," they agreed. Suhayb described the place in his house in Makkah
where he had left the money, and they allowed him to go. He set off as
quickly as he could for Madinah cherishing the prospect of being with
RasulAllah (saw) and of having the freedom to worship Allah (awj) in peace.
On his way to Madinah, whenever he felt tired, the thought of meeting
RasulAllah (saw) sustained him and he proceeded with increased
determination. When Suhayb reached Quba, just outside Madinah where
RasulAllah (saw) himself alighted after his Hijrah, RasulAllah (saw) saw him
approaching. He was over-joyed and greeted Suhayb with beaming smiles.
"Your transaction has been fruitful, O Abu Yahya. Your transaction has been
fruitful." He (saw) repeated this three times. Suhayb's face beamed with
happiness as he said: "By Allah, no one has come before me to you,
RasulAllah, and only Jibril could have told you about this." Yes indeed!
Suhayb's transaction was fruitful. Revelation from on high affrmed the truth
of this: "And there is a type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of
Allah. And Allah is full of kindness to His servants." (al-Baqarah 2/207)”

These incidents show that when it is needed for the beneft of Muslims and
Islam, economical compensation to kuffar will be given. At least from this
angle it is very clear that paying taxes to the kuffar states is not kufr. If giving
economical aid to the kuffar was kufr and in the consideration of prohibited
wala under every condition than RasulAllah (saw) and his (saw) sahaba (ra)
would not offer what they had offered. In both incidents it is seen that for the
benefts of the Muslim or Islam, to prevent a bigger dhulm the Muslim can
offer or pay the kuffar. It is not possible for a Prophet to act or think to
perform kufr during the period of his Prophethood.

Abu Yusuf gave the following information while explaining the oshur (a tax
of 1/10-1/20 the value).

"Oshur: this tax will be taken from neither Muslims nor ahl dhimma. It is
peculiar to traders who come from darul harb to daru islam for trade
purposes. Mushrik society of Manbaj wrote a letter to Umar (ra) and
requested the following from him: Let us enter into your abode and take
oshur from us. After making istishara (consultation) with ashab, Umar (ra)
wrote this letter to Abu Musa al-Ashari who was the wali of Iraq: Take tax
from them as they take from Muslims.” (Kitabu’l-Haraj)

According to this document Muslim merchants were entering to the abode of

kufr with permission and also they were paying taxes to the kafr
government. From this statement of Umar (ra) it is easily understood that
paying taxes to the kuffar is not kufr per se. For it to be kufr some other
reason is needed.

When a Muslim establishes a work place he should make his own calculation
and to see whether his beneft is more than the taghout if he pays his taxes. If
he fnds out that his beneft is more than taghout than there is nothing wrong
with him to pay taxes to taghout. He should try to pay the tax minimum as
he can. Paying taxes would be kufr only if it is given to support kuffar or
without any acceptable reason. It is because aiding kuffar without any reason
or to strengthen them is considered as wala. But if the money which is gained
with the trade or from the offces would be used for destroying the taghout
and supporting the dawah then there is an acceptable reason.

Nowadays the states of the kuffar take taxes out of every single product.
With trading, or shopping for the daily needs every single shopper becomes
the supporter of the taghout due to paying taxes. If paying taxes was kufr
then no one would be able to buy/sell anything in the borders of kuffar. We
are supposed to evaluate the taxes as the price of the services we get from the
taghout and not an aid to taghout. Taghout sells us electricity, supplies water
etc. they charge an extremely expensive price when they sell the services
however most of the time there is no other way to buy these services. And it
is known that it is permissible to trade with kuffar.

The money which is collected as tax is used for many different purposes.
Some of these are the felds of medical, retirement etc which are the benefts
for the inhabitants of the state. When you are taxed, there is no way to
determine how much, if any, of your actual tax dollars goes to implement any
of the aspects of Kufr – whether it is for the army, or the judicial system, or
towards social programs, which promote Kufr and Shirk etc. Although we
know that in general a percentage of the taxes collected are used for these
purposes, but no one knows where his/her own actual taxes are spent
specifcally. The individual who is taxed has no idea what the government
will do with the money it seizes from his or her wage, therefore there is no
confrmation that any particular person’s money has even contributed to any
Kufr. When it is not known where the money goes then it would not be kufr.
If it is known that the collected money goes to military or the security
services than it is not permissible to pay taxes. Most of the money returns
back to inhabitants as services.

We are giving such explanations to draw the lines of tax and not for
promoting the idea of paying taxes. Taxes are not a type of aid so should not
be evaluated as aid. It is the price of the service that the government
provides. It should be seen as the price of loan or trade instead of aid. They
provide services and we are paying its price. Although it is dhulm due to the
extremely expensive charges, it is not kufr to pay taxes under these
conditions.

Taxes sometimes appear as the symbol of getting people to accept and adapt
to the authority of the state. This is the same as the tax which is named as
jizya and taken from the ahl-kitaab by the Islamic state. This is mentioned in
the following ayah “until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel
themselves subdued.” (at-Tawba 9/29) Jizya which is described in the ayah is
a sign of disgrace; the situation of defeat and subservience; miserable
humiliated and belittled. Therefore they should be forced to pay Jizya in
order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should
not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land. This tax is the sign of taking the
sovereignty and giving the authority to those who are Muslim, with this they
become subjects of the Islamic state and pay jizya. No doubt jizya is the sign
of acceptance of the authority and open evidence of their agreeing to live in
Islamic state as its subjects. They earn the security and protection which
guarantees security of life, property and living the religion. This is also a sign
of annual reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honour of
paying Zakat in the way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price
of following the ways of error. Any type of tax which means the same would
not be paid by Muslims to the kuffar. Nagus also stopped paying the tax
which he used to pay to Byzantium after he embraced Islam. It is prohibited
and kufr to pay this kind of tax to the taghout which shows the obedience
and acceptance of the taghouti state. Anyone that shows the acceptance of
taghout (unless under coercion/ikrah) is a kafr.

Today taxes are paid due to the price of services which are provided and
maintained by taghout however there is still a little doubt that may occur. It
is better to refrain from paying taxes which are paid by the individual other
than the ones which are cut from his pay cheque or every interaction that he
does when he shops. And also in some of the countries there are two different
products and each have different amount of tax. In these cases it is best to
fnd out which product has lesser tax and prefer buying the one has less tax.
According to the historical narrations, the followers of Isa (as) stopped
paying taxes to the state of Rome. Pawlos fabricated and attributed the
statement “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God
the things that are God’s” to Isa (as) to bring an end to the discussions.

Paying the extremely expensive charged taxes can be compared to the trade
with a Jew who is charging extremely expensive price. Even if we observe
that the taghout charges taxes as the price of the services we know that they
are charging extremely expensive price and the price may be triple of the real
price. We ask Allah (swt) to lead us to the daru’l-Islam.

Benefting from the laws of the taghouti states

Allah (swt) commands: “We have enjoined on man kindness to parents: but if
they (either of them) strive (to force) thee to join with Me (in worship)
anything of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not. Ye have (all) to
return to me, and I will tell you (the truth) of all that ye did.” (al-Ankabut
29/8)

This ayah indicates that even though they are kafr one should treat his
parents with well manner and it also indicates that one can not obey them
whenever they command something against Islam. Again this ayah indicates
that obeying them, when they command something permissible in Islam, is a
type of good behavior and kindness which is considered as treating them
well and this is not kufr.

When the life of RasulAllah (saw) is looked into carefully one may see that
RasulAllah (saw) and his sahaba benefted from the some laws of the
taghouti states.

The pagan Arabs during the era of RasulAllah (saw) had a law of protection
(himayah) which they all agreed and accepted. According to this law, if
anyone wanted to enter a place where his life or his wealth under a threat, he
would request protection from someone from that land who can provide
protection for him. Once he declares his protection over him, no one would
touch him or his goods. If anyone harms him or his goods then the person
who provide protection and his tribe would oppose to the person who harms
and even if it cause end of lives or losing a huge amount of goods, they
would fght for it.

When RasulAllah (saw) returned to Mecca from Taif, he (saw) estimated that
entering Mecca would have been dangerous for him. Therefore he requested
protection from Mutim b Adiyy. Mutim was agreeable, so RasulAllah (saw)
entered Mecca with his support, where, fully armed, Mutim stood near the
Ka'ba with his sons and nephews and announced that he had allied himself
to RasulAllah (saw). According to the history books that day Abu Jahl was
among those present there and asked, if Mutim was giving him protection or
if he was following him and Mutim replied that he was providing protection
only.

Also some of the sahabah like Abu Bakr (ra) and Uthman b. Madhun (ra)
performed the same attitude and benefted from the law of protection as
RasulAllah (saw) did. Abu Bakr (ra) was under the protection of Ibnu’d-
Daghin who was also a mushrik. Until the mushrik society of Mecca made
Ibnu’d-Daghin to put limits over the ibadah of Abu Bakr (ra) by using this
protection law as an advantage, this protection continued. When they tried
exploiting it; Abu Bakr (ra) stopped this protection by his own hand. It is
because Abu Bakr (ra) knew that regulating ibadah accordingly to the desires
of kuffar is equal to giving compromise from aqidah which is defnitely
restricted. Therefore he rejected the protection which was permissible, when
it turned against his aqidah.

This proves that when the laws of the kuffar oppose the commands of Allah
or they prevent to live accordingly to the commands of Allah (swt), there will
be no obedience to it.

Again at the beginning of the Meccan period some of the slave-Muslims were
obeying the commands of their masters which were not opposing Islam.

We can extract some benefts out of these incidents for the caller of Islam:

It is permissible to beneft from the laws of the taghouti states as long as they
are not against the commands of Allah (jj). Moreover if there is maslaha
(beneft) which serves the Islamic community’s beneft or welfare a Muslim
may request from a kafr to implement a law which is legislated by the kuffar
and which does not oppose the shariah. However a Muslim can not apply to
an authority which has the right of legislating laws to legislate a new law for
the situation. It is because this request means giving right of legislating laws
to the taghout which is kufr.

RasulAllah (saw) requested to be protected which was a law of the kuffar.

However this is not the same as requesting from the kuffar to legislate a new
law or implement a law which is against the shariah. If the pagan society of
Mecca did not have this protection law, RasulAllah (saw) would not have
requested from the parliament of the taghouti state to legislate a new law.
This behavior means recognizing their right of legislation which is kufr.

This must be known very well; it is different to obey the kuffar in their
commands which are suitable to Islam and their commands which are
against Islam. And also obeying their laws which are not against Islam with
the intention to beneft from their laws is different than seeking judgment
from them and or requesting legislation from them.

To clarify the issue we can give the following examples: If there is a country
where there is a law in the law book stating that everyone who resides in the
state is free to display their ibadah. And in the same country there are some
companies where the owners of the companies put restrictions to pray salat.
A Muslim may go to his boss and request permission to worship freely in the
workplace for everyone in the work place, reminding him the law which
permits everyone to worship freely. Meaning he can request to implement
the law which had been legislated by taghout at the workplace. However, he
can not go to the court to enforce the boss to imply this law; this would be
kufr.

It is because this law is suitable to Islam and there is maslaha for the Islamic
community although it was legislated by the taghout. From this perspective
this law is similar to the protection law of the Meccan mushriks. This
performance of Muslim is same as the request of RasulAllah (saw) from
Mu’tim b. Adiyy.

But it is not permissible to apply to the court or parliament of the kuffar to

legislate a new law and it is kufr to do this. It is because this means
recognition of their right of legislation.

Allah (swt) commands: “The decision rests with Allah only, Who hath
commanded you that ye worship none save Him. This is the right religion,
but most men know not.” (Yusuf 12/40)

We should keep in mind that obedience to the taghout is not kufr only when
the obedience is in the matters of haram but it might be kufr even if with
regards to the permissible matters. Anyone who gives walayah to the taghout
and revering the taghout or obeys him in the matters which commands to
perform kufr then he will become kafr. Stopping at the red light is
permissible however if anyone stops at the red light due to revering the law
of the taghout or taghout itself will become kafr. However the one who stops
at the red light due to maslaha will not become kafr or a sinner.