Translating Jihad

Senior Cleric for American Muslim Group: Islamic Punishment for Apostasy Is Death

2013-03-04T06:38:00.000-06:00

(h/t Center for Security Policy) Dr. Hatem al-Haj, a senior committee member for the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA), confirmed in the below fatwa from July 2011 that the Islamic punishment for apostasy is death. A couple of things stand out to me about this fatwa.

First, this fatwa was taken down from AMJA's website as far back as October 2011, along with other fatwas on the same topic, possibly in response to an article written by my colleague Andrew Bostom exposing the rulings in that same month. (See the fatwa on archive.org, while the link on AMJA's website is broken.) So either AMJA changed their minds about the penalty for apostasy; or, more likely, they just don't want non-Muslims seeing what they really think on controversial topics. If that's the case, then what else are they not telling us?

Second, the question that leads to the fatwa is tellingly not asking what the ruling is on apostasy, but rather how to explain this ruling to others, including non-Muslims. While Dr. al-Haj confirms that the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death, he also recommends that when explaining this to others, you should start with the caveat that this is something which should only be carried out in a Muslim country through the court system.

AMJA likes to hide behind that caveat, but at the same time they encourage Muslims in the United States to use the American legal system in order to establish Islamic law (see here and here). So isn't it fair to assume that Dr. al-Haj and AMJA would like to eventually make death for apostates the law of the land here in the United States as well?

See my translation of Dr. al-Haj's fatwa below (see the original Arabic on his website):

The Ruling on the Apostate, and How We (Should) Explain It to Others

23 July 2011

Question: In view of the questions which we have been receiving in the Islamic centers these days, we ask you, sirs, to please explain how to respond to these questions, which are about the ruling on the apostate and his punishment.

Answer: Praise be to Allah, and peace be upon the Apostle of Allah.

I think you should begin by explaining that this is one of those things which is entrusted to the judicial systems in Islamic countries, and not to individuals in these countries or any others. Then make clear that the courts will examine these situations and decide them based on several factors.

But the ruling in the shari'a is death for men (who commit apostasy) according to all four (mainstream) schools (of Islamic jurisprudence). It is the same punishment for women according to most of the schools, but according to the Hanafis it is only imprisonment. This is according to the sayings of the Prophet (PBUH): "Whoever changed his religion, kill him"; and also, "It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's apostle, except for one of the following three: a murderer, an adulterer, and one who leaves his religion and separates himself from the community."

This firm ruling is not the only option for the imam, for he can rule otherwise, if there is benefit (in doing so). The evidence for this is the apostasy of some in the time of the Prophet (PBUH), on whom the ruling was not carried out. For (the Prophet) said the following about those who apostatized from the Muslims and joined the Quraysh: "Whoever departed from us and went unto them, Allah has banished."

This is not something that was invented by Islam, but rather the ruling on the apostate is also in the Law of Moses (PBUH). The following is from the Book of Deuteronomy:

"If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. If thou shalt hear say in one of thy cities, which the Lord thy God hath given thee to dwell there, saying, certain men, the children of Belial, are gone out from among you, and have withdrawn the inhabitants of their city, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which ye have not known; Then shalt thou inquire, and make search, and ask diligently; and, behold, if it be truth, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought among you; Thou shalt surely smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein, and the cattle thereof, with the edge of the sword. And thou shalt gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street thereof, and shalt burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit, for the Lord thy God: and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again."

It is well-known that those who worshiped the calf were ordered to be killed. In the Book of Exodus 32:28, it mentioned the killing of 3,000 of the Levites for their apostasy: "And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

In explaining this issue to non-Muslims, you need to be wise and honest. May Allah help you.

Allah Almighty knows best.

Dr. Wafa Sultan vs. Sheikh Omar Bakri: "Is there anything uglier than this shari'a on the face of the earth?"

2012-05-24T06:11:00.000-05:00

I was out of town last week, so I didn't have time to post this video until now. This clip comes from a 2-hour debate between ex-Muslim Dr. Wafa Sultan, and Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, the former leader of Islamic terrorist groups Hizb ut-Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun. In this clip, the two discuss the issue of human rights under Islam. Sheikh Bakri affirms here that Muslims and non-Muslims are not equal, due to the dictates of Allah, and if non-Muslims don't accept Islam, Muslims must fight against them. He also explains that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for Muslims, unless the non-Muslims enter into a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact [i.e. pact of protection offered to Christians and Jews]. This is just the first of hopefully several clips that I will be producing from this enlightening debate. Thanks to Vlad Tepes for putting the video together. See also Andrew Bostom's excellent post on this story here.

Subtitled video is above, transcript is below (see original video here):

Host: Sheikh Omar, what are human rights under the shari’a? Can you explain this for us?

Omar Bakri: The shari’a has defined human rights for Muslims and for non-Muslims. The non-Muslim has chosen to not accept the judgments of Allah. Therefore, yes, his rights differ from those of a Muslim. I say that they are not equal. The other party might disagree with me, that’s fine. That’s her opinion. But Islam gave rights to man, in order to satisfy his needs and take care of his affairs. Muslims and non-Muslims who have previously made a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact, are equal when it comes to citizenship. In other words, they are the same. The Islamic state and the Islamic shari’a, when governed thereby, guarantee their political needs, such as shelter, food, clothing, security, education, and health care, for they are under the care of the Islamic state. However, this equality does not mean that you are exactly like us. Yes, a non-Muslim under the Islamic shari’a cannot have any rights except those which Allah has legislated for him. Allah has legislated that he may have his belief, religion, clothes, and everything which is needed by all citizens, Muslim or non-Muslim. Now the Muslim has greater rights and respect because he is Muslim, for Islam is above others, and never below, so the Muslim is above others, and never below. [...]

Omar Bakri: I don’t believe in the equality of man, because men are not equal in the view of Allah. He commanded us to not make them equal. For example, I have the right to marry a Christian or Jewish girl, but it is not permissible for a Jewish man to marry a Muslim girl. This is correct. I am not calling for equality. When I go to Britain or Europe, I have the same right--my blood and property are inviolable. In exchange, their blood and property are also inviolable through this peace treaty. Their blood and property have no protection except through a peace treaty or a dhimmi pact. Thus Allah has commanded--you can either accept it or reject it.

Wafa Sultan: So when you travel to a Western land you consider it the land of Allah, and you want your beliefs to apply there?

Omar Bakri: Yes.

Wafa Sultan: You want to dictate to the native inhabitants of the country what they can do?

Omar Bakri: I invite them, and if they accept the command of Allah, then they may do so. If they don’t accept, and kick me out of the country, then we will fight against them. The relationship between us is either a pact of belief in Allah, or a peace treaty, or war. The general rule is that the blood and property of non-Muslims are permissible for us. Their blood and property are not inviolable. It is in their interest to have a peace treaty or dhimmi pact with me. It is in your interest, you who say that you do not believe in Islam, to accept that there be a peace treaty or dhimmi pact between us. The dhimmi pact falls under the Islamic shari’a, but the peace treaty does not subject you to the shari’a. That’s the way it is. Either you accept it, or we live in a state of war. The general rule is that the blood and property of infidels are permissible for Muslims. The Prophet Muhammad even said, “I was sent to fight against the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah, and I am the apostle of Allah.” Therefore if he said, “Their blood and property are inviolable from me,” then their blood and property would be inviolable if they believed in Islam or accepted a peace treaty. It is either through faith or a peace treaty that man lives with his neighbor. But a Muslim coexists with an infidel either through a peace treaty, a dhimmi pact, or a state of war. This is the basic relationship between a Muslim and an infidel.

Host: Thank you, Sheikh Omar. You went over your time, but it helped us gain a complete understanding of the topic. Dr. Wafa, what do you think about what Sheikh Omar Bakri said?

Wafa Sultan: I think that Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response should be recorded here. He was clear and frank, and explained the doctrine of Islam to the point that there is nothing left for me to reveal of that repulsive truth. Muslims here in America boast that the human rights recognized worldwide are the same as the rights under Islam. They boast that men’s rights are the same as women’s rights. They boast that Muslims’ rights are the same as non-Muslims’ rights. They boast that the shari’a can coexist with the American constitution. Therefore we should record Sheikh Omar Bakri’s response, for he did not dissemble, but instead manifested the truth of his religion in all its ugliness and hideousness. Under the shari’a he is required to fight against others until they believe what he believes. Is there anything uglier than this shari’a on the face of the earth? Is there anything uglier than that this should be imposed upon me by force, by arms? When we tell Americans here that Islam was spread by the sword, Muslims scream that this is not true, that it was spread by tolerance and the free word. But I want to stress what Sheikh Omar Bakri said, for he is a true Muslim, and has revealed to us the truth of Islam without equivocation. All the world should take note of the danger of this doctrine and fight against it will all their strength, for we cannot accept that any man on the face of the earth should force us to believe in his god.

AMJA Senior Committee Member: Female Genital Mutilation Is 'an Honor' per Islam

2012-04-27T06:48:00.000-05:00

Dr. Hatem al-Haj, addressing
Islamic Institute of Orange County,
June 2009 (link)

[Update, 23 May: Apparently a petition against Dr. al-Haj was started by a Jihad Watch reader after this translation was published on Jihad Watch, and the Mayo Clinic responded by firing Dr. al-Haj. Dr. al-Haj since published a clarification of his position on female circumcision, in which he claimed that he has "always condemned female genital mutilation." He said instead that he only supports "a subtype of Female Genital Cutting FGC, a harmless procedure called the ritual nick." However, according to the World Health Organization and U.S. federal law, any type of female circumcision is considered female genital mutilation. That is why I referred to it as such in this post. He also complained that my translation was excerpted and left out a lot of what he said on the topic. In my translation I was mainly concerned with Dr. al-Haj's explanation of the ruling of Islamic law on female circumcision/FGM, which is why I translated only the portion of the paper that dealt with that specifically. He is of course welcome to produce his own English-language version of the entire paper if he would like to make it available to the English-speaking audience.

Unfortunately for Dr. al-Haj, his position on FGM may not be the only one that is problematic for him as a pediatrician practicing in the United States. He also produced an Arabic-language post on child marriage entitled, "Yes, He (PBUH) Married Her at Age Nine, and There Is Nothing Wrong with That," which I hope to have time to translate soon.]

A couple of weeks ago I posted a translation of a paper by Association of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) senior committee member Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD, in which he warned American Muslims against working in law enforcement in our 'infidel' nation (see here for more details). Now in my latest translation, Dr. al-Haj explains why female circumcision is recommended and even 'an honor' for women. This is the same practice which is popularly known as female genital mutilation (FGM) due to the pain it causes women. The World Health Organization (WHO) asserts that "the procedure has no health benefits for women," and causes a range of health problems including "severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, infertility as well as complications in childbirth."

Yet Dr. al-Haj, a medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, ignores FGM's detrimental effects on women's health, and instead argues that it is 'an honor' for women. He justifies this position by referring repeatedly to the words of classical Islamic scholars from the four schools of mainstream Sunni Islamic thought, all of which attest to FGM's legitimacy under Islam. He also refers to the words of the Prophet Muhammad himself, who reportedly counselled people in his day on how to perform FGM in a way that would be "more beautiful to behold and better for [the woman's] husband."

Thanks again to the Center for Security Policy for their assistance and expertise on AMJA.

Below is my excerpted translation of the 41-page Arabic-language paper by Dr. Hatem al-Haj entitled "Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine" (see the original here and here):

The ruling on circumcision: Scholars have differed on the ruling on circumcision. They have agreed on its legitimacy for both sexes, but beyond that they have differed. Some--most famously the Shafi’ites--believe that it is obligatory for both sexes. Some believe it is obligatory for men only, and some believe it is recommended for both. At the very least it can be said that for women it is an honor, and for men it is sunnah [i.e. it is in accord with the tradition of Muhammad].

There are many hadiths on circumcision, some of which will be presented here along with the commentary of some scholars:

From Abi-Hurayra, who attributed it to the Prophet: “Five (acts of) al-fitrah [Islamic law or way of nature] are circumcision, shaving pubic hair, plucking armpit hair, trimming fingernails, and clipping the mustache.” Also from Abi-Hurayra: “The Messenger of Allah said, ‘Abraham was circumcised when he was 80 years old’.”’ Allah said: “So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith” [Qur’an 16:123]. Also recorded in a hadith is the saying of (Muhammad) to a man who converted to Islam: “Remove your infidel hair and be circumcised.”

Muhammad also said regarding circumcision: “If you touch the two circumcisions, you must wash.” Here is evidence that women were circumcised, and therefore any of the hadiths on circumcision which do not specify men or women, can be assumed to apply to both.

From Sa’id bin Jabir: “Ibn ‘Abbas was asked, “How old were you when the Prophet (PBUH) died?" He replied, "At that time I had been circumcised. People (in those days) did not circumcise men until they reached puberty.” From the hadith of Umm ‘Atiyah--who used to circumcise girls--the Messenger of Allah said to her, “Reduce it, but do not remove too much, because it is more beautiful to behold and better for her husband.” This is the most explicit evidence in the hadiths of Muhammad for female circumcision being legitimate and even recommended. From Ibn ‘Abbas, attributing it to the Prophet: “Circumcision is sunnah for men and an honor for women.” This was narrated by al-Bayhaqi, and its attribution is weak.

Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Abi-Barza: “We asked the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) about an uncircumcised man making pilgrimage to the Ka’aba. He replied, ‘No, not until he’s circumcised’.” This was considered a weak hadith by Ibn al-Mundhir and others.

There’s no doubt that among these hadiths there are those which are sound but do not explicitly command or urge women to become circumcised. There are also those which are met with disagreement by scholars, and these hadiths are more explicit in confirming the legitimacy of female circumcision. But the hadiths on the laws of al-fitrah which mention circumcision--and these are sound--do not mean that it is done on men only and not women. It is certain that circumcision includes both men and women, as is clearly stated in the hadith about touching the two circumcisions.

Below are words from scholars on the ruling on circumcision:

The Hanafis: Al-Zayla’i said: “The general ruling is that circumcision is sunnah, and is one of the trademarks of Islam. In fact, if the people of Egypt or some land decided to abandon its practice, the Imam would make war against them, for it cannot be abandoned except by necessity... Female circumcision is not sunnah, but it is an honor for men because it is more pleasing during sex” [ellipses in original].

The Malikites: From al-Kharshi’s brief summary of Khalil: “Its ruling (i.e. circumcision) is that it is sunnah for men, and it cuts off the foreskin. It is recommended for women, and is called khifad [reduction].”

The Shafi’ites: From [Asna al-Mutalib]: “Circumcision is obligatory (at puberty). The reasoning for this is the saying of the Almighty: “So We have taught thee the inspired (Message), Follow the ways of Abraham the True in Faith” [Qur’an 16:123]. In Abraham’s religion, circumcision was present. Also in the two Sahihs: “He was circumcised when he was eighty years old.” In Sahih Ibn Hibban, and in al-Hakim it was said 120 years, and it was also said 70 years. Also it was narrated by Abu-Dawud: “(The Prophet) (PBUH) ordered a man who converted to Islam to be circumcised.” They said that since he cut off a member which could not be replaced, it had to be obligatory like cutting off the hand. Since the man was injured during the process, he feared it. If it were not obligatory for him, then it would not have been permissible. This is unlike the circumcision of little boys, crazy people, and those who cannot endure it, because the first are too young to be required to do anything, and the last are harmed by it.” Al-Nawawi said in al-Majmu’: “Circumcision is obligatory for our men and women. This was stated by many of the salaf, as al-Khatabi relates. Ahmad was one of those who said it was obligatory. Malik and Abu-Hanifa said that it was sunnah for everyone. This was related by al-Rafi’i. He also related that (circumcision) is obligatory for men and sunnah for women. These were the two approaches of Shadhan, and of the sound and famous school of thought which was penned by al-Shafi’i, in which the multitude of scholars declared that circumcision is obligatory for men and women.”

The Hanbalis: From Ibn Muflih’s Furu’ [body of rules and regulations for man’s behavior]: “(According to Ahmad), circumcision is obligatory on all but women, for whom it is recommended. Our Shaykh said, ‘It is obligatory because cleanliness and prayer are obligatory’.” Ibn Qudama said: “Circumcision is a duty for men, and for women it is an honor, but it is not obligatory. This has been stated by many scholars.” Ahmad said: “The man is more difficult, because if the man is not circumcised, then the skin dangles over the [penis] and cannot be cleaned. But the woman is easier.”

The al-Mawsu’a al-Fiqhia (“The Encyclopedia of Jurisprudence”) summarizes scholars’ opinions on circumcision as follows:

“The ruling on circumcision: Scholars differ on circumcision as follows: First, the Hanafis and Malikites--and very rarely the Shafi’ites--hold to the opinion of what Ahmad said, that circumcision is sunnah for men but not a duty. It is one of the acts of al-fitrah, and one of the rituals of Islam. If the people of a particular land decided together to abandon its practice, the Imam would make war against them, just like if they abandoned the call to prayer. This also represents what the Malikites think about circumcision of women. Hanafis and Hanbalis consider female circumcision to be an honor and not sunnah. It is said by some Hanafis that it is also sunnah for [women], and some say that it is recommended. … Second, the Shafi’ites and Hanbalis, as is also stated by Sahnoun from the Malikites, believe that circumcision is a duty for both men and women. … Third, this is written by Ibn Qudama in al-Mughni, that circumcision is a duty for men, and for women it is an honor but not a duty” [ellipses in original].

Assessment

It appears that for male circumcision the most correct view is that it is obligatory, owing to the saying of Muhammad to the man who converted to Islam: “Remove your infidel hair and be circumcised.” This was obligatory--there was no alternative.

Regarding women, perhaps the most correct view is that it is recommended, however there is consensus that it is (at least) legitimate. Muhammad also endorsed it, as was narrated in the hadith of Umm ‘Atiyah, who used to circumcise girls. He said to her: “Reduce it, but do not remove too much, because it is more beautiful to behold and better for her husband.” He also said, “If you touch the two circumcisions, you must wash.” This shows that female circumcision was prevalent during his day, and he did not repudiate it. Nor did he stipulate anything else regarding female circumcision.

Perhaps the saying that it is (only) recommended is due to the pain women must go through to carry out the acts of al-fitrah, such as circumcision, as stated in the sound hadith. But as we mentioned, this is not evidence of it being confined only to men. The term circumcision was used for both men and women during Muhammad’s time. But it is clear that performing circumcision must be preferable to not performing it, especially when one considers that circumcision includes both pain and revealing one’s nakedness. Thus if there was no benefit to it, the Messenger of Allah would not have agreed to it. However there is still no evidence for making it obligatory. The fact that the Messenger of Allah agreed to it despite the pain and discovering one’s nakedness is not evidence for making it obligatory. Instead, this is evidence for preferring the action over not doing it, as we stated. (Muhammad’s) command to Umm ‘Atiyah is not a command to all women to (be circumcised), but rather he was regulating its practice. He was not telling her not to do it, he was telling her not to go too far and injure the women.

His command to the man who converted to Islam does not apply to women. Even though the principle is that “women are men’s sisters”, and women are often included when addressing men and vice versa, that only applies when there is no reason to differentiate between them. Here the issue is different for men and women. The man’s foreskin could trap urine at the end of it and affect his cleanliness. The issue is not the same for women. Therefore it is appropriate for this to be stressed more for men, and this is apparent in the words of scholars and the works of the ummah.

I have summed up the words of Muhammad and of scholars to show that circumcision is legitimate, and that the principal issue in the study is the limits of circumcision.

Video: Moroccan Jihadi Preacher Calls on All Muslims to Leave France, Compares Europe to a Toilet

2012-04-17T06:56:00.000-05:00

As seen in the subtitled video above, Moroccan Islamic preacher Shaykh 'Umar al-Hadushi (variant: Omar al-Haddouchi) urges all Muslims to leave France in a video released just over a week ago, citing as reasons for doing so France's banning of hijabs and restrictions on the call to prayer. Al-Hadushi further explains that Islam is to be exalted above all, and never to be lower than anything else. Al-Hadushi additionally compared non-Muslim countries to a toilet, where you go to take care of business and then you leave.

Al-Hadushi provides several conditions which must be present for a Muslim to reside in a non-Muslim country, the most important of which is that he must be in a position to influence those around him, but he is not to be influenced by others.

It is important to note that while al-Hadushi will probably be ignored by the mainstream media or marginalized as some crazy jihadi preacher, the attitudes and beliefs underlying his opinions are really no different than those expressed by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in the two papers translated here over the past few weeks (see here and here). AMJA essentially repeats the same idea that Muslims are not here in America to be influenced by others or to become part of the melting pot society, but rather are here to try to move others toward Islam and establish their law as supreme. That is their only purpose.

Thanks to Vlad Tepes for adding the subtitles into the video for me and publishing it (see his post on this here).

Below is my excerpted translation of the original 14-minute video, which was used to subtitle the video above (original Arabic video here):

I say unto my brothers in France, I love you as you have loved me. I also give unto you my counsel, which is primarily for myself. [...]

I say unto you, then, that you must leave. You must leave the land of the polytheists. The Prophet (PBUH) has said: “Do not gaze into their fire.” He also said, “None of us reside with the polytheists.”

He once found a woman who had been slain, and he said, “I have nothing to do with any Muslim living among the polytheists.” Therefore we should not increase the numbers of the polytheists. The Prophet (PBUH) said in the two Sahihs also in the hadith of A’isha, “An army will invade the Ka’aba, and when the invaders reach al-Bayda’ the ground will sink and swallow the whole army.” I said, "O Allah's Apostle! How will they sink into the ground while amongst them will be their markets and the people not belonging to them?" The Prophet replied, "All of those people will sink but they will be resurrected and judged according to their intentions." Islamic scholars say that the benefit of this hadith is that it forbids increasing the numbers of the polytheists.

Therefore if a Muslim is unable to declare and openly observe the rituals of his religion in a certain country, then he must emigrate from that country. This emigration does not cease until the Day of Resurrection. There are different types of emigration, for the Prophet (PBUH) said, “There is no emigration after the conquest--only jihad and good intentions.” In other words, from Mecca to Medina, because Mecca was conquered and became the house of Islam. But there still remains another emigration which does not cease, like jihad does not cease until the Day of Resurrection.

Therefore, you can emigrate from a country which insults the Islamic scholars. Emigrate from a country in which the shari’a cannot be applied. Emigrate from a country which bans the hijab, or the call to prayer. The very first ritual which should be witnessed by the people is that of the call to prayer. But France bans the call to prayer, and now bans the hijab. Therefore you must now flee from that country.

Some scholars even say if a man travels to the land of the polytheists for trade, or work, if he had to travel there, the following conditions must be present. First, he must possess sound doctrine. He must be armed with sound doctrine. Second, he must be able to outwardly observe the rituals of his religion. Third, he must not be performing humiliating work, such as a garbage collector or sweeper, for this is never permissible. This is something polytheists should do, for Islam should always be above, never below.

The most important condition which scholars have imposed, is that Muslims should influence others, and not be influenced by others. This is in the situation that he is compelled to go there for work or study, something which is not present in Muslim lands. If he is armed with sound doctrine, he can influence the polytheists, and he cannot be influenced. I mean, no one can influence him to become a Christian, Allah forbid, or worse. [...]

I also say unto you that living among the polytheists is like what a man does in the toilet. He goes in to take care of his business then leaves. Does anybody live in the toilet? The answer is no. [...] It's the same with the lands of the polytheists. [...]

Mainstream American Muslim Group Warns Muslims Against Working in Law Enforcement, Becoming "Pleased with a Legal System That Does Not Come from Allah"

2012-04-12T21:18:00.000-05:00

The Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) cautioned American Muslims in a 22-page Arabic-language paper in 2008 against working in law enforcement in countries which do not rule by Allah's dictates. One of their main concerns was that such work might cause Muslims to gain love and respect for secular laws:

...there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)

AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari'a, such as "arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he 'raped' her."

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for "their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari'a"--an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari'a: "It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari'a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one's rights and working out one's grievances" (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah--the shari'a--supreme:

[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar'ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one's life:

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. [...] But if saving [the individual's] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.

It is worth stressing once again that AMJA--whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"--is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America; and the author of this paper, Dr. Hatem al-Haj, MD, PhD, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and founder and president of "Building Blocks of Islam."

A longer list of some of their prominent American members follows:

Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
Ahmad Al Soway'ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), Vice President of Islamic University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
Main Al-Qudah, MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.

Sincere thanks to the Center for Security Policy for their assistance in discovering this document and facilitating its translation and production.

Translating Jihad's full translation of the AMJA paper follows (see the original Arabic-language paper here):

Title Page:

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America

The role of professions and jobs in the West which are intermixed with that which is forbidden: What is permissible and what is forbidden

Fifth meeting

April 2008

Title of the study: Working in Law Enforcement in Non-Islamic Countries

Prepared by Dr. Hatim al-Haj
Member of the Permanent Fatwa Council of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America
Member of the faculty of the Shar’ia Academy

Page 2:

Eighth Resolution: Working in the Judiciary and Everything Else Which Falls Under It Outside the Lands of Islam

Allah sent his Apostle and revealed His book so that the people could be established in equity. Their path to that equity is to settle their differences through His laws, executing them in absolute justice and rejecting all the whims of men which conflict with them. It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances. (This is also on the condition that) the individual’s demands before the judiciary are legitimate, and he does not take from its rulings anything except that which agrees with the shar'ia. If it is decreed that he should receive that which he has no right to (per the shari’a), he must not take it, for the ruling of the judge cannot make permissible that which is forbidden, nor make forbidden that which is permissible. The judge discovers (law) but does not create it.

Islamic communities must settle their disputes in righteousness, under the framework of the arbitration of the shar'ia. (They are also) to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar'ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

Working as an attorney is legitimate as long as the attorney is convinced of the justice and legitimacy of that which he who granted him power of attorney asks him to do.

Page 3:

The Study

Introduction

In the name of Allah and praise be to Allah. We praise him and seek his aid and forgiveness, and seek refuge in him from the sins of our souls. He who is guided by Allah is not misled, and he who is misled has no guidance for him. I testify that there is no god but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is his slave and messenger. He received his message from Allah, and he fulfilled that message. He declared to us the laws of our religion in all aspects of life, so that the People of the Book envied us for his declaration. May Allah grant peace and blessings to him, his family, his companions, and all those who follow his religion until the day of judgment. Amen.

A third of Muslims in our day live as minorities in non-Islamic countries, while two-thirds--or most of them--live under non-Islamic regimes, even though they live in Muslim countries.

Both of these groups are subject to man-made laws, which don't agree--or some of what is in them doesn't agree--with the Islamic shar'ia.

The stages of working with these laws begins with legislation, which is the work of the members of parliament or congress. Then there's the stage of ruling by their laws, which is the job of judges. Then there's the stage of executing and enforcing these laws, which is the job of the police.

These police execute that which is incumbent upon them, and don't have the freedom of the judge--which is relative freedom--as it was in the early history of Islam. So here the Muslim must ask himself if it is permissible for him to work as a police officer under these regimes or even those non-Islamic countries!

In my study I will specifically deal with the issue of working as a police officer in non-Islamic countries. I will divide the study into an introduction, in which I will mention the current situation for Muslim communities in non-Islamic countries. I will also describe the work of law enforcement in Western countries, especially in the United States. Then I will lay out the pros and cons of participating in this work. Then I will mention the general ruling on referring judgment to law other than the shari’a of Allah. Finally I will present evidence for making it permissible or forbidden, and I will follow this with an assessment and a recommendation.

Page 4:

Introduction

As stated previously, a third of Muslims live as minority communities in non-Islamic countries, such as India, China, Russia, the countries of Europe and the Americas, and Australia. Some of these are immigrants to these countries, but most of them are native residents or were born there. What is shared by the majority of them is the difficulty in emigrating from their native countries to the land of Islam. While it has been facilitated for a few, it depends largely on the naturalization laws of those particular countries. It is expected of all minority communities to participate in all employment sectors, especially those sectors in which loyalty is important, such as the military, police, judiciary, etc.

Thus if a particular community abstains from participating in these sectors—I’ll use law enforcement as an example since that’s the focus of our study—it appears to the people of that country to be a lack of loyalty from the Muslims toward their country. This could result in their rights being encroached upon. Also, the lack of Muslim presence in certain employment sectors makes it so that those who do work in these sectors have less understanding of Islam and its adherents, and thus become more alienated from them. No doubt this will result in negative consequences for Muslims. Likewise, the absence of Muslims from these sectors will lead to them being ignorant of what they do, and less knowledgeable of their missions, as well as the best way to work with them. It could also result in them committing infractions, as individuals or as organizations. On the other hand, the presence of members of the community within this sector could lead to the protection of the community and its members from committing these infractions or errors which would result in negative consequences for them. One of the benefits of participating in law enforcement which is worth mentioning is that it could simplify some things for Muslims, such as traffic near their mosques, protection of the mosques, etc.

Still, there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. It is one thing to acquiesce to it and take heed to not violate it in order to defend themselves and their societies against harm, and to preserve the reputation of their religion and their people. However, it is another thing to be pleased with it and show reverence for it in opposition to the shari’a of Allah. One of the evils of this job is that the worker could give up many of his convictions of the shari’a, and commit many sins such as mixing with that which is forbidden [i.e. mingling with females]--which happens often in this employment sector--being alone, and other sins. One of the evils present in many sections of law enforcement is spying on people--both Muslims and infidels--which leads to a decrease in loyalty among individuals of the community and adds suspicion between them. This is more so in the work of investigative detectives than with other job categories.

Page 5:

The General Ruling on Ruling by Other Than That Which Allah Revealed

Ruling by other than that which Allah revealed is a great evil. Allah Almighty said: “And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious” [Qur’an 5:49].

He also said: “O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account” [Qur’an 38:26].

He also said: “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?” [Qur’an 5:50] and “If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers” [Qur’an 5:44].

Whoever has brought (into the community) the sin of ruling by other than that which Allah revealed vacillates between being pleased with a legal system which is not the shari’a of Allah and substituting it for the shari’a. His action is either a greater infidelity [kufr akbar] which is outside the pale of Islam, or it is done out of ignorance or lust or passion, or due to a misinterpretation or a minor error, with the conviction that the shari’a of Allah is the wisest and best legal system, and that he is compelled to carry it out. Thus his action [to rule by other than that which Allah revealed] is one of the greater sins.

These are the words of scholars on whoever brought in this sin:

Imam Abu-Muhammad ‘Ali Ibn Hazim al-Andalusi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “No two Muslims disagree that whoever rules by a ruling of the Gospel [i.e. Christianity] which was not prescribed by divine revelation in the shari’a of Islam is an infidel and polytheist, and is outside the pale of Islam.”

The Shaykh of Islam Abu-al-’Abbas Ahmad bin ‘Abd-al-Halim bin Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him), said: “When a man makes permissible that which is forbidden, or makes forbidden that which is permissible, or substitutes another shari’a (for the shari’a of Allah), all scholars are in agreement that he is an infidel.”

Page 6:

Isma’il bin ‘Umar bin Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the saying of the Almighty “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?”[Qur’an 5:50]: “The Almighty rejects those who depart from His rulings--which include all that is good, and forbid all evil--and turn toward the opinions, fancies, and conventions put in place by men, without relying on the shari’a of Allah, as the people in the days of ignorance used to rule...and as the Tatars ruled, with the rulings taken from their king, Gengis Khan, who put in place al-Yasiq for them...For whoever does this is an infidel who must be fought against until he returns to the rule of Allah and His Apostle and does not rule by anything else, great or small” [ellipses in original].

Ahmad Shakir (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the saying of the Almighty “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance?” [Qur’an 5:50]:

“With this in mind, can it be permissible in the shari’a of Allah for Muslims to govern in their countries by legislation which is adapted from European legislation … changing and substituting it as they will, indifferent to whether it agrees or conflicts with the shari’a of Islam? … Regarding these man-made laws, it is as the clear as the noon-day sun that it is outright infidelity. There is no excuse for anyone who belongs to Islam, whether they work with these laws, are subjected to them, or have consented to them. Every man must warn himself, and every man is accountable for himself. But the scholars must openly declare the truth, undaunted, and tirelessly preach that which they have been commanded to preach” [ellipses in original].

Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It is clearly greater infidelity [kufr akbar] to give cursed law the status of what was revealed by the true spirit to the heart of Muhammad (peace be upon him). (Muslims) have been warned, in the plain Arabic tongue, against ruling among the people by (cursed law), and referring to it to settle disputes, which is contrary to the saying of Allah Almighty: “If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for final determination” [Qur’an 4:59]. Almighty Allah has denied the faith of those who do not refer judgment in their disputes to the Prophet (peace be upon him), even repeating this denial clearly in an oath. The Almighty said: “But no, by the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction” [Qur’an 4:65].

Shaykh Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti (may Allah have mercy on him) said on his commentary of the saying of the Almighty, “Verily this Qur'an doth guide to that which is most right (or stable)” [Qur’an 17:9]:

Page 7:

“Verily this Qur’an doth guide to that which is most right (or stable). Its declaration is that following any other law besides that which was brought by the son of Adam, Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah (peace be upon him), in order to follow opposing laws is utter infidelity, and marks departure from the Islamic community and faith. The infidels said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘If a sheep is dead, who killed it? He responded, Allah killed it. They said to him, What is sacrificed by your hands is permissible, but what is sacrificed by the holy hand of Allah, you say that it is forbidden! Are you, then, better than Allah?’ Allah revealed the following concerning them: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans” [Qur’an 6:121]. The deletion of the words ‘for verily’ from His saying “ye would indeed be Pagans” indicates that there is a deleted oath … If the sentence were an answer only for the condition which came before it, it would have been combined with the ‘for verily’. … For it is an oath from Allah Almighty, by which He swore that whoever follows Satan in making permissible (the eating of dead meats) is a polytheist, and this polytheism is a departure from the Islamic community and faith, by the consensus of all Muslims” [ellipses in original].

Now the last category of those who contradict the shari’a of Allah--after having agreed that it is the most perfect and best, and that it is compulsory upon its followers--includes (those who do so out of) ignorance, lust, bribery, or injustice. These cannot be termed infidels, and their action is not quite a major sin. For Allah has termed sin to be infidelity, and unlike the last (category), neither Allah nor His Apostle have termed this to be infidelity. Ibn ‘Abbas conveyed this in his commentary on the saying of the Almighty, “And whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed - then it is those who are the disbelievers” [Qur’an 5:44], when he said, “It is not the disbelief [kufr] that you are thinking about.”

This is right, for he was talking to them about reality; there was no substituting the shari’a of Allah (intentionally), but rather they ruled by something else to satisfy their desires, extend their influence, and conquer their subjects. Perhaps policemen do not enter into the first category as long as they prefer the shari’a of Allah and the impermissibility of referring to judgment to another law. But policemen in Muslim countries which are not ruled by Islam did not alter the shari’a of Allah and cannot refer people to it. So this is the question: Does taking this job place them in the second category, or is it permissible for them to do so as the lesser of two evils?

Page 8:

Categories of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States of America

To answer the previous question, we must provide a quick presentation of the different types of law enforcement occupations.

Municipal police currently perform the following functions in order to enforce the law:

Mounted patrols

Respond to distress calls or serve the citizens

Direct traffic when there are car accidents

Investigate forced robberies

Perform first aid on accident victims

Many of them are placed in a specific area to communicate with residents to prevent crime

Identify suspicious behavior, follow and arrest the criminals

Enforce traffic law

Police officers in colleges, universities, schools, and public transportation vehicles are types of police officers who specialize in enforcing the law in certain locations. Some of them are detectives, and most of them are dressed like police officers.

Some law enforcement officers specialize in :

Chemical and microscopic analysis

Training for law enforcement work and the use of weapons

Identifying fingerprints

Quick response units (to defuse bombs, for example)

Units on horseback or bicycles

Preserving the order/schedule and security of the political leader

State police officers:

The head police officer (the sheriff) is normally elected, and with the help of aides supervises the activities of municipal police.

Page 9:

State police officers engage in the following activities:

Arrest criminals in all areas of the state

Highway patrols for (enforcing) the law and keeping the peace

Assist accident victims

Municipal and county police may assist them as needed

Detectives, analysts, and investigators do not dress like police officers. They engage in the following activities:

Gather evidence of crimes

Some of them specialize in combating certain types of crime

Pursue criminals and arrest them

Hunting and fishing police:

Enforce laws related to hunting and fishing on land and in the sea, and drive boats

Offer assistance to those who need it

Write up letters of complaint and incident reports

Officers of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):

These are the detectives and investigators who work for the federal government. Their work includes investigating, following up, and preparing cases criminals and law-breakers for more than a hundred different types of crimes which are termed ‘federal’, or those which concern the entire nation and federal authority rather than state authority. These include national security crimes. They engage in the following:

Perform investigations and surveillance of suspects

Eavesdrop on their communications

Go after work crimes and fraud in large companies

Pursue violations committed by municipal and state police officers

Pursue cases of bribery and financial and administrative corruption

Pursue cases of terrorism and espionage

Pursue crimes which cross state boundaries

Drug-smuggling cases

Bank robberies

Airplane hijacking

Kidnapping

Violation of civil rights

Page 10:

Police officers who combat narcotics and illegal medicines belong to the DEA, and they specialize combating narcotics both inside and outside of the United States.

Judicial police (Marshalls):

They specialize in protection, security, service, and facilitating the activities of judges and courts, including protecting witnesses and jurors, and transportation of federal criminals.

The police from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives specialize in enforcing laws relative to crimes connected to these items.

Police in the Department of State:

Their work includes preserving the security of diplomats and combating terrorism. They work inside and outside the United States, where they offer support to embassies. Inside the United States they follow up on cases of passport fraud, and also protect the security of people in diplomatic missions.

Homeland Security police:

Beneath them are Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration [ICE], and Special Operations.

Police who protect airplanes (Air Marshalls) do not dress like police officers and ride on various flights in order to preserve security onboard.

Police officers from Secret Service:

They protect the President, Vice President, and candidates for president as well as their families. They also protect important persons from other countries.

The mission of mail police is to protect the mail system.

Police for public parks and forests maintain security, control violations, and care for public parks and forests.

Page 11:

Prisons police:

Most of them are placed in state or federal prisons, where they maintain security inside the prisons, and prevent fighting between the prisoners.

Page 12:

Evidence Against Working in Law Enforcement in Non-Islamic Countries

1. We have already mentioned all the evidence for it being forbidden to rule by other than the shari’a of Allah, and that whoever does so, either as ruler or as prosecutor, is an infidel, whether it is greater infidelity or lesser infidelity. Nor is the police officer exonerated from being the executor of the judgments of those rulers, and enforcer of a law which does not come from Allah.

It could be argued that man-made laws are not all the same. Some of them agree with the intent of the shari’a, such as traffic laws which save lives and money. There are also some which do not conflict with the shari’a, such as preserving forests and preventing the killing of certain types of animals, as well as some administrative laws in companies which could fit under the category of those interests which Allah has left open for man. However, it can also be said that some of the laws conflict with the shari’a, and there is no alternative but for the police officer to enforce them, and punish those who violate them.

It could still be argued that for the last category, this does not disqualify every type of police officer. There are some who specialize in combating narcotics, chemical analysis, taking fingerprints, protecting mail or forests, and other areas which do not require them to enforce law which is contrary to the shari’a of Allah. This is so even though all of these professions subject the worker to at least a few offenses.

2- Cooperating with sin and aggression: The police officer could participate in building a case against a Muslim who is oppressed or has been arbitrarily targeted by the authorities for one reason or another. Islamic communities in the West have discussed many examples of these arbitrary cases being brought against their individuals and institutions.

Allah Almighty says: “Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment” [Qur’an 5:2]. However, those who lead the affairs of the police could be agents and helpers of either the oppressors or the oppressed; they are not equal.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said:

“He who is appointed to sin and aggression is he who helps the oppressor, while he who helps the oppressed to lighten the oppression from him is an agent of the oppressed, not the oppressor. He does not carry the same status as the one who lends him money or authorizes him to take the money from him to the oppressor. An example of this is a guardian to an orphan and (the orphan’s) endowment. If an oppressor came and asked him for money (from the orphan), and he strove to pay less money--either paid to him or someone else--after exerting all effort to pay, then he was merely doing good, and there is nothing wrong with doing good. Also an agent of a landlord, from among the heralds, writers, or others, who grants them authority to make contracts, seize (property), and pay what is required of them--(the agent) does not give authority to oppressors to take it for them. Likewise if an injustice were committed against the people of a village, school, market, or city, and if a man mediated to pay on their behalf as well as he could, and divided it amongst them to the degree they were able without favoring himself or anyone else, and without taking bribes, but acted as an agent for them to make payment, then he was doing good. However, most of the time when someone performs that kind of work he acts as an agent of oppressors, accepting favors and bribes, to protect whomever they want to protect and take from whomever they want to take. This is one of the greatest evils of those who will be gathered in coffins of fire. They are their agents and are like them, and will likewise be taken and cast into the fire.”

Page 13:

As the Shaykh al-Islam said, most of those who seek these jobs want money and prestige, not to make truth victorious or aid the oppressed.

3- Spying is forbidden in the shari’a when the person is not charged with anything, as Allah said: “O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs” [Qur’an 49:11].

If there is no evidence of wickedness from the person, then he should not be spied on. However, many Muslims in those communities may be spied on because suspicion and distrust have seized those placed in charge of the affairs of these communities. They eavesdrop in mosques, homes, cars, and various communications devices.

4- There is clear evidence from the sunnah on the prohibition of working as a police officer for oppression and evil-doers.

A- The saying of (Muhammad) (peace be upon him) in the hadith of Abi-Hurayra as narrated by Muslim: “The Apostle (peace be upon him) said there are two categories of the people of the Fire which I have not seen. The first have whips like the tails of cattle, with which they beat people. The second are women who are naked despite being dressed. They will be led astray and lead others astray. They have heads like camel humps. They will not enter the Garden, nor will they even experience its scent, even though its scent can be smelled from such a great distance.”

B. Also the hadith (of Muhammad): “Rulers will come unto you, who will work great wickedness, and will delay the prayers from their appointed times. Whoever among you perceives this, must not be corporals, policemen, collectors, or treasurers with them.”

C. Al-Tabrani narrated in al-Saghir and al-Awsat from Abi-Hurayra (may Allah have mercy on him) that the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “In the last days, there will be princes of darkness, evil ministers, treasonous judges, and lying jurists. Whoever among you in that day perceives this, must not be collectors, corporals, or policemen with them.”

Page 14:

However, he who ponders these sayings finds that they warn Muslims against a certain reality in which evil will be widespread in the land of Islam. The evil will be assisted by some people to conquer the others. There is no doubt that ruling by that which Allah did not reveal is evil in and of itself, but the evil which these sayings refer to is not synonymous with disbelief in Allah [kufr], but rather it is different from it. Do you not perceive that the Apostle (peace be upon him) described the Negus as being just? He did not rule by the shari’a of Allah, but the shari’a of his people, which was distorted Christianity. Disbelief in Allah and evil are different in this respect, even though disbelief in Allah is a type of evil, and evil is a branch and fruit of disbelief in Allah.”

Wherefore, Imam Ibn Taymiyya says: “Allah will make the just nation victorious, even if it is an infidel (nation). He will not make the wicked nation victorious, even if it is a believing nation.” Therefore justice and disbelief in Allah can be combined in some aspects, but not all. The observer can see that in the Western countries there is justice among individuals which has no equal in Islamic countries. Perhaps this is denied out of obstinacy, but Muslims should not do this.

The policeman who works in an Islamic nation which has these rulers who advance iniquity, contributes to the deterioration and decline of that Islamic nation with his work. This is not a generalization on the work of policemen in every Islamic country, and in every sector of law enforcement. Meanwhile on the other hand, the one who works (as a policeman) in an infidel nation, Allah through his work might lift some harm from the Muslim community. What you find is that scholars have been influenced (in their thinking) on law enforcement by some grievances which occurred in the Umayyad and ‘Abbasi eras, which alienated many scholars from these jobs.

5- Suffice it to say that among the violations (of the shar'ia) which occur in this sector are those which are present in various employment sectors in the West and are even often present in the Muslim East. These include reckless mingling (among the sexes), being alone, and so forth. But perhaps these are some of the things which distinguish the work of law enforcement from other occupations.

Page 15:

Evidence of Permissibility

Perhaps those who make it permissible to work in law enforcement--except in its rarest forms--do so under the pretext that it is the lesser of two evils, and not under the pretext of ‘unrestricted interests’ [al-maslaha al-mursala] or that which comes above them. Thus we will lay out these rules, after which we will relate the evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and actions of the Salaf regarding entering the work of law enforcement.

The principle of committing the lesser of two evils is one of the great principles of the religion of Islam, which bridges the gap between the ideal and reality. The one who employs this principle is able to favorably deal with every reality in which he lives, and turn every situation into what is most beneficial to the slaves (of Allah), and most pleasing for their righteousness.

Imam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The shari’a came so that good may be acquired and perfected, and so that evil may be obstructed and diminished. On this wise, the lesser of two good things is hindered so that the better of the two can be acquired, and the lesser of two evils is committed so that the worse of the two can be avoided.”

Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “That which is forbidden (but necessary) may be committed if it is done for a valid purpose.”

Al-‘Az bin ‘Abd-al-Salam and others who are beyond doubt expressed similar ideas. There is no doubt that this principle is based on evidence from the shari’a, and is according to divine wisdom, for good and evil intertwine and overlap in this world as often as things are purely good or purely evil. Likewise al-Khadir both burned the ship and killed the boy for a valid purpose [see Qur’an 18].

The Messenger of Allah permitted al-Hajjaj bin ‘Alat to speak poorly of him and disparage him so that he could recover his money from the people of Mecca, even though disparaging (the Prophet) (peace be upon him) is disbelief in Allah [kufr]. There are many examples of this in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. For Allah has legitimized fighting, and even commanded it in certain occasions, which carries with it the possibility of death and squandering of wealth. Al-Shatibi himself, who offered the previous quote, was also the one who said:

“It is legitimate to acquire good for oneself, but the evils which are warded off must be considered in terms of establishing this life in place of the next life, not in terms of the passions of the soul in obtaining its regular benefits, or warding off its regular evils. This is supported by the following::

“First--Allah-willing, that which has been stated will come to pass, that the shari’a came to remove Muslims from the desire to fulfill their own passions, so that they can become slaves of Allah. If this is true, then it does not jive with the assumption that the shari’a has been set in place in accordance with the passions of the soul, to demand its immediate benefits no matter what they are. Our Lord has said: “If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption!” [Qur’an 23:71].

“Second--The above means that the benefits gained for the Muslim are normally marred by the negative effects that are caused, just as the negative effects are surrounded by some benefits. We also say that life of an individual must be respected and preserved, so that if you had to choose between preserving its life and losing its money, or losing its life and preserving its money, then preserving its life comes first. But if saving its life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth. Likewise if saving one life would destroy many lives, such as in combat, for example, then saving many lives comes first.”

Page 16:

Ibn Taymiyya gave an example of this with the saying of Allah Almighty: “Remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt” [Qur’an 29:45]. He clarified that forbidding obscenity and vice is good, but remembering Allah is greater, for that is a purpose unto itself, which takes precedence.

Page 17:

Consideration of the Consequences

Researchers among the Islamic scholars must take into account the consequences of actions. A fatwa which does not take consequences into account is deficient, as al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Considering the consequences of actions is to consider the intent of the shari’a, whether the actions agree with it or oppose it. This is because the mujtahid does not make a ruling on any action, whether to go ahead with it or to refrain from it, until after he has considered the end result of this action. It could be legitimate due to the good that induced it or the evil that prevented it, however the end result might be the opposite of the intent. It could be illegitimate due to the evil which gave rise to it, or the good which pushed it away, but the end result could be opposite of the intent. If the first action were called legitimate, but then the evil it caused ended up being as great or greater than the good, that would prevent it from being called legitimate. On the same wise, if the second were called legitimate, but it ended up driving away as much or more evil than it caused, then it would not be correct to call it illegitimate. This can be a difficult situation for the mujtahid, although it is enjoyable to produce favorable outcomes which are in line with the spirit of the shari’a.”

There is no doubt that these words reside in the glorious light of the shari’a, for did not the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) stop rebuilding the house on the foundations of Abraham so that it would not cause fitna for the Quraysh? Did he not also stop the killing of the hypocrites, who were deserving of it, so that people would not say that Muhammad kills his companions? Under this pretext, Imam Ibn Taymiyya forbade his companions from banning the drinking of wine for the Tatars, for the drinking of wine did not prevent them praying and remembering Allah, but it did prevent them from killing the innocent and stealing their property.

There still remains another question, which is: Does working in law enforcement, with its violations (of the shari’a) and its compelling people to follow another law besides the shari’a of Allah--in some of its occupations--fall under this category?

The answer, according to those who believe it is permissible, is yes, and their evidence for that is as follows:

1- The story of Joseph (peace be upon him) and his working as a minister to Pharaoh, of which Imam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“...Political authority--whether it is permissible, recommended, or obligatory--is within the right of the man appointed to this power to change it to be more obligatory or more recommended. For at that time he decides what is best, sometimes obligatory and sometimes recommended. along this vein, Joseph the Faithful took charge of the treasury of the land for the king of Egypt.

Page 18:

But the problem was that he was placing (Joseph) over the treasury of the land, while he and his people were infidels, as the Almighty said: “And Joseph had already come to you before with clear proofs, but you remained in doubt of that which he brought to you, until when he died, you said, 'Never will Allah send a messenger after him.' Thus does Allah leave astray he who is a transgressor and skeptic” [Qur’an 40:34]. It is well-known that even though they were infidels, he had to serve as the tradition and the law for them in taking their money and distributing it to the king’s entourage, family, soldiers, and subjects. That was not in accordance with the Sunnah and the justice of the prophets. Joseph could not do everything he wanted to, and was not believed to be of the religion of Allah, so the people did not respond to him. However, he wrought as much justice and goodness as he could, and the king honored the believers from his house, which would not have happened otherwise. All of this falls under the saying (of Allah): “So fear Allah as much as you are able” [Qur’an 64:16].

However, the inference from the story of Joseph (peace be upon him) is not free from opposition, for some scholars make the condition that the worker must be free to control how he comports himself, even as he works for the oppressor or licentious man. Some of them do not think at all, for it includes aiding the oppressor. They interpret this based on what it says in Surat Yusuf [Qur’an 12] that he was an agent for the king with regards to his money, not his kingship. Some even refer to the saying that Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous. On this wise, Imam Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Some scholars have said: In this verse [Qur’an 12:55] it permits a righteous man to work for a wicked man, and an infidel ruler, on the condition that he is granted authority to act without opposition, and he works according to that which he desires. However, if his employment were according to the choice of the wicked ruler and his wicked desires, then that would not be permissible. People say that ‘This was a special situation for Joseph, but today it is not permissible. It would be (permissible) if it were according to the conditions we mentioned. Allah knows best.’

Al-Mawardi said: “In the case where the master is wicked, people have differed on whether it is permissible to rule under him. The following two opinions are present: First, (it is permissible) if he has the right to control his own work within that which he is entrusted. For Joseph ruled under Pharaoh, and his work was determined by his own actions, not by the actions of another. Second, it is not permissible, for it includes rendering aid to oppressors, and endorsing them by assuming their tasks. Those who are of the first opinion respond to this by saying, first: Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous, and Moses’ Pharaoh was wicked. Second, (Joseph) looked after his possessions, not his actions, for his liability did not extend past his possessions.”

Al-Mawardi said: “What is more correct than either of these two opinions is to separate what is entrusted to the individual into three categories. First, what is permissible for his people to do without any ijtihad, such as giving alms and paying the charity tax. For it is permissible to take responsibility for this work from the oppressive ruler, because the text stipulating its worthiness is clear enough that no ijtihad is necessary. It is permissible for people to do this on their own, without needing to resort to the opinion of any doctrine or school of thought. The second category includes that which is not permissible to do on its own, and which requires the use of ijtihad in its application. An example is the taking of booty, for it is not permissible to take responsibility for this from the oppressive ruler. Therefore this (category) cannot be applied except to (cases) which are deserving of it. The third category includes those tasks which it is permissible for him to delegate to his people. There is an opening here for ijtihad, such as court cases and rulings/judgments, for the contract (to delegate the power) is dissolved. If the authority delegated was merely to execute the ruling between those who consent, or mediate between those who are compelled, then it is permissible. But if it was to compel by force it is not permissible.

Page 19:

Perhaps it will be noted that the comments of this group of scholars on injustice and immorality seem obvious. Our situation, for the most part, is not like that, as it’s been presented. The truth is that what the Shaykh al-Islam said is the closest (to our situation), for Joseph (peace be upon him) was not the absolute arm (of Pharaoh). Doctor ‘Ali Muhammad al-Suwa said:

“The king had an appointed system and law, as evidenced by the saying of the Almighty: ‘He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king except that Allah willed’ [Qur’an 12:76]. The society was also polytheist, and continued in its polytheism after Joseph, as evidenced by the saying of the Almighty: ‘But you remained in doubt of that which he brought to you’ [Qur’an 40:34]. It is clear that Joseph was not in complete control of the government. He was not even in complete control of the treasury, for the king had personal expenses which Joseph was not permitted to interfere with. The society had a custom and tradition for collecting funds, and spending them on the king’s entourage, family, and subjects. The tradition was not in accordance with the shari’a and the justice of the prophets, nor was Joseph able to do everything he wished, according to what he believed from the religion and justice of Allah.”

Abu-al-’Ala al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) agreed with this interpretation, and inferred from it that it was permissible to take upon oneself various positions of political authority in a non-Islamic government. He (may Allah have mercy on him) even went so far as to say that the political authority was a communal obligation in certain circumstances. (He argued that) it was not appropriate to disagree with this interpretation simply because Joseph was under a different shari’a which came before ours. For if the issue was related to faith, disbelief in Allah [kufr], oneness of Allah [tawhid], or polytheism, there is no doubt that the religion of the prophets was one and the same on these issues.

In that respect, Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman ‘Abd-al-Khaliq said:

“There is no evidence in the Qur’an or the Sunnah for saying that it is not permissible under the shari’a to take upon oneself political authority in infidel governments. The Qur’an and the Sunnah in fact say the opposite. For Joseph (peace be upon him), who was a noble prophet, took upon himself the responsibility over the treasury of the land in Egypt, which was a position similar to working in the ministry of finance today. Even though he was under a different shari’a which came before ours, there is nothing in our shari’a which would conflict with his. Yes, the Prophet (Muhammad) (peace be upon him) refused for Muslims to be tax collectors or police officers under unjust imams. But this should not be applied except where there is evidence to justify it. (It must be explained) that he forbade Muslims from being tax collectors to unjustly collect revenue from the people for the ruler. He also forbade police officers from beating the people in order to take their money, for there is no obedience to a creature in disobedience to the Creator.”

Page 20:

2 - The Story of the Negus

It was transmitted from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that, “The Prophet (peace be upon him) said upon the death of the Negus: ‘A righteous man has died today, now go and pray for your brother Usahma’.”

(The Prophet) (peace be upon him) attested in this story of the righteousness of the Negus and prayed over him, even though he was king of an infidel nation, in which he ruled by other than that which Allah revealed. On this wise Imam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“The Negus was not able to rule by the rulings of the Qur’an, for his people would not agree to that. Often a man among the Muslims or the Tatars will become a judge or even an imam, and will have some good and just things that he wants to do, but he is unable to do them, or he is prevented from doing them by someone. Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity. ‘Umar bin ‘Abd-al-’Aziz was treated with great hostility for some of the justice and reforms which he put in place. It was said that he was poisoned for that reason. The Negus and others like him are happy in Paradise. If they did not comply with the laws of Islam, it was because they were unable to do so. Instead, they ruled by the judgments they were able to put in place.”

Therefore if it was permissible for the ruler to rule by other than the shari’a in that case in a non-Islamic country in which he was unable to rule by the shari’a, then it is all the more permissible to execute these rulings.

Page 21:

3- The hadith of ‘Abd-al-Rahman bin ‘Awf, in which the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “I witnessed with my cousins a pact which was so excellent that I would not wish to break it even for a herd of red camels.”

This shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) under Islam did not want to break a pact which was made in the days of ignorance [i.e. before Islam] because it defended the oppressed. Most of the police work done in non-Muslim countries is to aid the needy, defend those who have been hurt in spirit and body, crack down on organized crime, etc.

Page 22:

Assessment:

From examining the different views and evidences, it appears that on this issue there are two sides and one middle area.

The first side: It appears to me that it is impermissible for one to work for the FBI or for national security with the harm they inflict on Muslims who are arbitrarily targeted by the government because of their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a. The work of these agencies includes spying on these Muslims and others, as well as eavesdropping on their homes, cars, communication devices, and even their mosques, without any clear charges. It is prohibited by the shari’a for Muslims to participate in these activities, which lead to increased suspicion among members of the (Islamic) community as well as the weakening of their ties of faith and loyalty. All of this comes of evil, which is worse than whatever ill effects I see in abstaining from involvement in these activities.

But the other side refers to occupations such as those working with counternarcotics, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Post Office, national parks, forests, and fisheries, or even in prisons as well. All of this appears to be permissible.

The middle area includes working as municipal, state, and county police. These might have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her. These and similar incidents, though rare, do happen.

It is this middle area which requires one, with consideration and precision, to judge between two evils, and toss out the greater evil for what is probably the lesser evil. The Islamic community should leave this task to (scholars) who are firm in the knowledge of (these subjects), and then proceed according to their opinions.

Allah knows and judges best.

Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America Cautions Muslims Against Participating in American Legal System; Urges Them to “Hate It in Their Hearts”

2012-03-14T05:00:00.000-05:00

[Update 14-Mar-2012: Added the names of additional prominent Muslim leaders in the United States who are affiliated with AMJA, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia, Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions, and Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America. Updates to post are in italics below.]

Below is my translation of an Arabic-language paper published by the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA) in 2007, and presented at their 2008 careers conference in Houston, which provides guidelines for American Muslims on what they can and cannot do vis-à-vis infidel legal systems. The paper makes clear that according to Islam, the only legitimate law is that which comes from Allah, and in fact authority to make laws rests with Allah alone. This renders every other legal system—including the American system—illegitimate.

Since the fact nevertheless remains that many Muslims do live under such ‘infidel’ legal systems, the paper provides guidelines for how they should act under these systems, specifically addressing issues such as Muslims studying man-made law (i.e. non-Islamic law), Muslims governing under infidel legal systems, Muslims working as judges or lawyers or prosecuting cases in infidel courts, and Muslims granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes. Throughout the paper it is made abundantly clear that Muslims should view the American and other non-Muslim legal systems as infidel systems, and that they are only to participate in them in specific circumstances in order to benefit Islam and Muslims generally. They are specifically instructed to feel hatred in their hearts toward such infidel legal systems, and to do everything within their power to make the Islamic Shari’a supreme, even if that means engaging in deception in certain cases.

It is important to note that AMJA--whose stated purpose is to "clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America"--is not just a fringe organization with no influence. The Islamic scholars involved with this group occupy influential positions in universities, Islamic centers, and mosques throughout the United States. Below is a list of some of their prominent members and experts, along with the names of universities and other organizations with which they're affiliated, as accessed from AMJA's website (Arabic name spellings as listed by AMJA):

Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
Ahmad Al Soway'ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), Vice President of Islamic University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
Main Al-Qudah, MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.

Credit goes to the Center for Security Policy for discovering this paper and bringing it to me for translation, and providing the background information to give it context.

(Note about the translation: This is a gist, and not a verbatim translation, of the 47-page Arabic-language paper produced by AMJA. Certain sections of the paper are gisted in more detail than others simply due to Translating Jihad’s assessment of their relative significance. All Qur’an quotes included in the translation are taken from Yusuf ‘Ali’s English translation of the Qur’an, accessed from quran.com. Page numbers included below are taken from the original Arabic-language paper, which can be seen here.)

The gisted translation follows:

Page 1 (Title Page):

Published By: Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America (AMJA)

Title: “Judicial Work Outside the Lands of Islam—What Is Permitted and What Is Forbidden”

By: Dr. Walid bin Idris bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz al-Manisi, Member of the Permanent Fatwa Committee for AMJA; Member of the Faculty of American Open University; Imam and Speaker at the Dar al-Faruq Islamic Center in Minneapolis

Date: November 2007

Page 2 (Introduction):

Millions of Muslims have had to live outside the lands of Islam, or have been forced to do so, and many of them are persecuted in their religion. Muslims are permitted to reside in Dar al-Kuffar (i.e. The Land of the Infidels) under two conditions:

1- He is permitted to practice his religion openly in Dar al-Kuffar;

2- He is not permitted to practice his religion openly, but he is unable to emigrate to Dar al-Islam (The Land of Islam)

Because of Muslims’ residence outside the Dar al-Islam, there have been (legal) disputes between them and non-Muslims, both with individuals and with governmental and non-governmental organizations. At times the disputes are between themselves as Muslims as well. Thus they need to know the rulings of the Shari’a in their situation, including for some Muslims who have gained employment as lawyers or judges in non-Muslim countries, in order to preserve the rights of Muslims, and help them overcome persecution. That’s why AMJA has prepared this study.

The importance of this is further increased considering that many Muslim lands have been occupied by foreign powers, and have had foreign judicial systems imposed on them which are secular and which disallow the Shari’a from being used in court, or only allow it to be used for personal and family issues.

Page 3:

The study has been divided into a foreword and five chapters. The foreword deals with governing by other than that which Allah sent down, and when it becomes disbelief in Allah (kufr). The first chapter deals with the study of man-made law. The second chapter deals with being employed as a lawyer outside the land of Islam. The third chapter deals with being employed as a judge outside the land of Islam. The fourth chapter deals with prosecuting in foreign (i.e. non-Islamic) courts. The fifth chapter deals with granting powers of attorney to non-Muslims in disputes.

Page 4:

Foreword: Governing by Other Than That Which Allah Sent Down

First Question: The permissibility of governing by other than that which Allah sent down.

Linguistically ruling means preventing or prohibiting, but in proper usage ruling by the Shari’a is ruling by what Allah has spoken. Legal rulings are divided into two sections: 1) obligatory and 2) positivist (or man-made).

Obligatory ruling is Allah’s word concerning those whom he commands, whether by requirement or by choice.

Man-made rulings are reasons or conditions or prohibitions which the lawmaker has put in place which by their existence either affirm or deny the rulings of the Shari’a.

The difference between the two is that the former requires the person to either comply with it or not, while the latter has put in place guidelines or descriptions for either doing it or not doing it.

The authority to legislate rests with Allah alone (quotes various Qur’anic scriptures related to this).

Page 5:

Various sources in the Qur’an and hadith attest to the fact that making it permissible to rule by other than that which Allah sent down is disbelief in Allah (kufr) and outside the pale of Islam.

(Quotes from Ibn Taymiyya to the effect that whoever makes permissible what Allah hath forbidden or makes forbidden what Allah hath made permissible is an infidel (kafir), and all jurists agree with this)

(Quotes from Ibn Kathir’s commentary on the Qur’an, in which he explains that anyone who substitutes man-made laws for those of Allah is an infidel (kafir) and must be fought against until he restores the laws of Allah)

(Quotes from Ibn Hazim al-Andalusi, repeating the same sentiment, and adding that anyone who does this is a polytheist (mushrik), and is joined to the Jews and Christians.)

(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh on the same issue, who also quotes some passages from the Qur’an to support this view.)

Page 6:

(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Amin al-Shanqiti to the same effect)

Page 7:

(Quotes from Shaykh Ahmad Shakir, who claims that infidel colonialists have imposed un-Islamic laws on the Muslims, which in fact represent an alternate religion to replace Islam; laments that most Muslim countries have adopted godless European systems of governance.)

Page 8:

(Quotes from Shaykh Salih bin Ibrahim al-Bulayhi (or al-Balihi), who calls ruling by other than that which Allah sent down to be disbelief in Allah (kufr); the only way to preserve the rights granted by the Shari’a is to govern by the Shari’a completely.)

(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz bin Baz who also contends that governing against the Shari’a is disbelief in Allah (kufr).)

(Quotes from Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-‘Uthaymin to the same effect.)

These quotes from ancient and modern imams are sufficient to establish that governing by other than that which Allah sent down is major disbelief in Allah (kufr kabir), and departure from Islam.

Second Question: The total replacement of the Shari’a of Allah with another Shari’a

The total replacement of the Shari’a of Allah with a Shari’a of men was first done by Muslims during the time of the Tatars, in which they replaced the Shari’a with the laws of Yasiq (or Yasa) during the time of Gengis Khan, which consisted of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic laws. Yet at the same time they claimed to be Muslims.

Page 9:

This prompted Ibn Kathir to conclude that they were infidels (kuffar).

Page 10:

Some have mistakenly alleged that several well-known scholars have said that it is not disbelief in Allah (kufr) for someone to completely replace the Shari’a of Allah with another set of laws, unless they claim that these other laws are Allah’s laws. However, this was false and a misinterpretation of the scholars’ statements. However, it also doesn’t mean that you can automatically pronounce takfir (i.e. the act of declaring someone to be an infidel) on someone who has governed by non-Islamic law. The scholars were judging the action, not the actor, and there may be mitigating circumstances for the actor, i.e. he might be ignorant or compelled to do so.

Page 11:

Third question: The ruling on a case in which the Shari’a of Allah is partially replaced by another Shari’a

If a ruler governs by the Shari’a of Allah some of the time, but then governs by another law part of the time, he is not an infidel (kafir), but he is a corrupt tyrant. Allah used three terms to describe those who rule by other than the Shari’a: disbelief in Allah (kufr), injustice, and sin/immorality. ‘Ali bin Abu-Talha narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas: “Whoever denies what Allah sent down, has disbelieved in Allah (kafara). Whoever confessed it but then didn’t rule by it is an evil tyrant.”

(Quotes the end of Qur’an 5:44, and several Islamic scholars’ interpretation of this verse, explaining that it means that whoever failed to judge by that which Allah revealed has disbelieved in Allah, but they haven’t left the Islamic community.)

(Quotes from Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzia, who explains that whoever rules by other than that which Allah revealed has committed infidelity (kufr), either great or small—great if they didn’t believe it was the right thing to do, and small if they believed it was the right thing to do but didn’t do it.

Page 12:

(Quotes from Imam Ibn Abu-al-‘Azz al-Hanafi to the same effect.)

Page 13:

First Chapter

The Study of Foreign and Man-made Laws

First Question: The ruling on their study and the categories of those who study them

There is a good and a bad side to studying foreign law. On the good side, it is in order to warn others of what’s in it, or to better understand what distinguishes it from the Shari’a, or to help protect Muslims from being oppressed by it, or to protect Muslims’ rights under the Shari’a. On the bad side there are those who do so to sow dissension (fitna), and prefer it over the Shari’a, or make it equal with the Shari’a, especially if the one who studies foreign law is devoid of knowledge, and doesn’t understand Islam.

Those who study foreign law are broken down into several different categories. The one who best explained this was Shaykh ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz bin Baz, with a fatwa titled, “Ruling on one who studied man-made laws or undertook to study them.”

(Fatwa): Question: Is one who studies man-made laws or undertook to study them an infidel or not?

Answer: Allah has obligated all of his servants to be ruled by the Shari’a, and every other form of law is ignorance (jahiliyya). Those who study foreign law can be divided into three categories.

First category: This is he who studies it in order to find out the truth of it, or to know why the Shari’a is preferred over it, or to benefit from it in a way which does not contradict the Shari’a, or to benefit someone else. There is nothing wrong with this.

Second category: This is he who studies it in order to rule by it or appoint someone else to rule by it, with the knowledge that it is against the Shari’a to rule by other than that which Allah revealed. However, they do it for money or are carried away by some other fancy. These people are definitely evil-doers, and among them are those who are infidels and oppressors. However, it is the smaller disbelief in Allah (kufr).

Page 14:

Third category: This is he who studies it because he believes it is permissible or wants to make it permissible (under Islam). This is considered greater disbelief in Allah (kufr). Scholars agree that those make permissible what Allah has forbidden or make forbidden that which Allah had made permissible are infidels (kuffar).

Page 16:

Chapter 2: Working as an Attorney in Foreign and Man-made Courts

Question 1: Attorneys and their history

An attorney is one who advocates on behalf of another and offers legal counsel. Everyone also has the right to advocate for themselves. The purpose of an attorney is to have a well-spoken man who is familiar with the case, and who at the same time has knowledge of the applicable laws. Attorneys are supposed to help the judges understand the facts of both sides of the case so they can make correct judgments. In this way attorneys are considered aides of the judges.

Attorneys have been around since ancient times in various countries. In Islamic jurisprudence, jurists have discussed attorneys under the heading of Power of Attorney/Proxy in Litigation. In general, attorneys are considered legitimate by a consensus of scholars.

Granting power of attorney in the language of the scholars is a permissible request for legal assistance for the attorney to act as one’s representative.

Question 2: Attorneys in Islamic Countries

Page 17:

The work of attorneys is well-established in Arab and Islamic countries, and there are well-established fatwas from scholars which approve of their profession, as long as the attorney is seeking justice rather than helping someone who is guilty go free. It is permissible to represent someone who is guilty, as long as the attorney is merely seeking to prevent him from receiving an unjust sentence.

In most Islamic countries, attorneys are simply known as attorneys. However, Saudi Arabia has a system in place which is derived from the scholars’ discussion about the power of attorney in litigation, which is slightly different from the Western system, from which the systems in other Arab countries are derived.

The various Arab laws and regulations have generally stipulated, just as in the Western system, that attorneys are agents of the judges, and that their purpose is to serve justice and the public welfare.

Question 3: Attorneys at the Time of the Fathers (al-Salaf)

It has been narrated that ‘Ulya authorized ‘Abdallah bin J’afar to serve as an attorney in the time of ‘Uthaymin. It was also narrated that ‘Ulya authorized ‘Aqila to serve as an attorney in the time of Abu-Bakr.

Page 18:

Ibn Qudama also related that all of the companions of the Prophet agreed on the legitimacy of legal representation.

Question 4: Rulings from Scholars on Attorneys

Scholars have mentioned many issues related to legal representation in disputes. (Quotes from the author of Al-Bahr al-Ra’iq in Hanafi equating granting someone authority to act as your legal representative and granting someone authority to arrest someone else)

Imam Ibn Rushd al-Maliki said an agent can cease being an agent at any time, unless he is a legal representative in litigation. (Quotes from Asbagh, Abu-Hanifa, and Imam al-Shafi’i discussing the conditions under which an attorney can nullify his contract and cease being a legal representative)

(Quotes from Imam al-Shafi’i and other scholars and companions of the Prophet about the same issues)

Page 19:

In sum, attorneys are permissible under the Shari’a of Islam, under the section of authorized representation in litigation, which has been stipulated as permissible by scholars, as attested to in the texts of the four schools of Islam. There is no difference between attorneys, or advocating for someone before an Islamic or foreign or man-made court.

Page 20:

Chapter 3:

Working as a Judge in Foreign and Man-made Courts

First Question: Definition of the judiciary and its staff, and the declaration that it is a communal obligation (Note: Communal obligation (fard kifaya) in Islam refers to a duty that is shared by the Islamic community, so that not everyone has to engage in it as long as someone is doing it. The same term is used to describe the duty of offensive jihad.)

Linguistically ‘judiciary’ is taken from ‘to execute’, meaning ‘to execute the rulings on the matter’ and to complete it. Allah Almighty said: “So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days” [Qur’an 41:12]. (Note: The Arabic word translated as ‘completed’ in this verse is qada, which also means ‘to execute’, and is the root of the word qada’, which means ‘judiciary’.) Allah also said: “So decree whatever thou desirest to decree: for thou canst only decree (touching) the life of this world” [Qur’an 20:72].

The term judiciary or judgment means to eliminate disputes and conflicts through an obligatory ruling of the Shari’a.

(Delves deeper into the linguistics of the Arabic word for judiciary)

Given that it is necessary for the Islamic nation (ummah) to have a judiciary in order to resolve disputes, all scholars are in agreement that judgeship is a communal obligation. (Quotes from Ibn Qudama to support this)

Page 21:

The Prophet himself undertook this great work, and after him his companions and his successors also took on this work (i.e. of being a judge).

Second Question: The foundation for the judge not ruling except by the Shari’a of Allah

The foundation for the ruling, and the reference for the judge ruling by the Shari’a, comes from the saying of the Most High: “We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah” [Qur’an 5:46], as well as the saying of the Most High: “Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed” [Qur’an 5:49]. Ruling among the people means establishing justice without favoritism, and justice means putting things in their proper place. There is no justice except in the ruling of Allah. Therefore when one rules by other than that which Allah revealed, he has put something outside of its proper place. The Almighty said: “And when ye judge between man and man, that ye judge with justice” [Qur’an 4:58]. He also said on this topic: “O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account” [Qur’an 38:26]. He also said: “Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah's purpose to punish them. And truly most men are rebellious. Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?” [Qur’an 5:49-50].

We have already stressed in the introduction the danger of judging by other than the Shari’a of Allah, and that it is disbelief in Allah (kufr), injustice, and sinfulness, and we don’t need to repeat ourselves here. Rather we will confine our discourse to the needs of Muslims in countries ruled by man-made law, and Western countries—is it permissible for them to work as judges in certain conditions? This is what we will clarify Allah-willing in the next question.

Page 22:

Third Question: Working as a judge in foreign and man-made courts

Scholars have differed on the ruling on working as a judge in foreign and man-made courts on two sayings:

First saying:
It is not at all permissible to work as a judge in foreign and man-made courts.

This has been stated by a majority of scholars, and is included in the general meaning of the words that ruling by a law which is not the law of Allah is disbelief in Allah (kufr). We have already mentioned many of them, and published the texts of their statements.

Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rizaq ‘Afifi (may Allah have mercy on him) said that whoever as a Muslim with a knowledge of Islam rules contradictory to the Shari’a is an infidel (kafir) and is outside the pale of Islam. This also goes for whoever takes the ruling which is contradictory to the Shari’a and applies it to other cases.

The argument for those who support this position lies in the verses of the Qur’an which state that whoever rules by that which Allah did not reveal is an infidel (kufr), and is designated a tyrant. These say that ruling by that which Allah did not reveal makes one an infidel (kufr), and is only permitted under compulsion, and Muslims are not compelled to become judges in man-made courts. Imam Ibn Qayyim said there is no disagreement in the Islamic community (ummah) on the fact that it is not permissible to utter disbelief in Allah (kufr) except under compulsion, if the person is a believer.

Second saying:

It is permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation or a nation which rules by infidel law, even if that leads to ruling by their law, if by so doing one is able to increase the good and decrease the bad as much as possible.

Among those who have stated this in classical times is the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him), and among contemporaries are the scholars of al-Azhar and Muslim Brotherhood leaders such as Hassan al-Hadyi and his son M’amun al-Hadyi, as well as ‘Abd-al-Qadir ‘Awda and others.

Page 23:

This position was also taken by Shaykh Muhammad Salim bin Muhammad ‘Ali bin ‘Abd-al-Wadud from what is now known as Mauritania. This Shaykh held several positions in the Mauritanian courts, through which he attempted to abolish the man-made law in the country, and replace it with the Shari’a, which he accomplished somewhat. To this day he continues to sit as the president of the Supreme Islamic Council, and also participates in several other Islamic organizations.

The argument of those who permit this is summarized as follows:
Joseph (of Egypt) took charge in an infidel nation, and he wasn’t able to rule by all of the rulings of Islam. It cannot be said that he governed but did not judge, because the governor or ruler judges between the people. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya made it clear that the imamate is a type of judgeship. (Quotes from Imam al-Qurtubi, who elaborates on this interpretation of Joseph’s position in the government of Egypt as justifying ruling by other than that which Allah revealed, as long as he’s only there in order to improve things as much as he’s able, and not because he prefers infidel rule.)

(Quotes from al-Mawridi, who says that there are two opinions on the permissibility on working in a position of authority under a tyrant; first, it is permissible if he works righteousness in that which he is entrusted; second, that it is not permissible. Those who support the first opinion argue that, first, Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous, while it was Moses’ Pharaoh who was a tyrant; and second, that Joseph looked after the Pharoah’s possessions, not his actions, so he was not liable for them.)

Page 24:

(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman ‘Abd-al-Khaliq, who says there is no basis in the Qur’an and Sunnah for saying that it is not permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation, and also quotes from the story of Joseph in the Qur’an to support the idea that Muslims can work as judges in infidel nations. He also argues that if you’re going to say that Muslims can’t work as judges in infidel nations, then you might as well say they can’t work as engineers or teachers or anything else which supports the state. Says that it is among the worst sins to leave the affairs of Muslims entirely in the hands of their enemies.)

Page 25:

The Prophet (PBUH) approving of the rule of the Negus was also a case of a Muslim ruler in an infidel nation, which followed that some of the rulings were contrary to the Shari’a of the Qur’an.

(Quotes from several scholars who quote hadiths of the Prophet, in which the Prophet made an alliance with infidel polytheists. They use this to argue that the Prophet was essentially agreeing in the alliance to support some infidel laws, so therefore you can’t say that it is never permissible to act as a judge under infidel law.)

(Quotes a hadith narrated by Anas regarding al-Hajjaj bin ‘Alat and his return to Mecca to retrieve money after Muhammad conquered Khaybar, using this as justification for serving as a judge under an infidel power.)

Page 26:

Many who forbid acting as a judge in an infidel country at the same time make it permissible to act as a legislator in said country, in which their job is to legislate by other than that which Allah revealed. However, the two jobs are actually very similar, and in fact both fall under the category of ruling by that which Allah did not reveal. Salman al-‘Awda explained that entering the legislature is a way of helping to reduce oppression, and enact positive reforms. Just because one enters the legislature does not mean he is recognizing that the infidel system is good, nor is he confessing his belief in it.

(Quotes from Ibn Taymiyya, who cited the example of the Negus to support this position.)

Page 27:

(Continues to quote from Ibn Taymiyya, who again cites the example of Joseph working under the Pharaoh.)

Page 28:

It seems to me that this issue cannot be easily divided, because it involves an infidel job, and causes injustice, and definitely negative consequences will result from a Muslim being employed as a judge outside the lands of Islam. But I think that Muslims should be forbidden from being employed as judges in infidel countries or those ruled by man-made law, except in certain limited cases where they can rule by the judgments of Allah. Besides that, it is not permissible to work as a judge except to defend Muslims against some great evil which would befall them unless some of them worked in the judiciary. These cases are covered in a special fatwa directed at a small number of individuals, in which the following conditions are presented:

· That he understand the Shari’a in such a manner as to be able to rule by it in every case brought before him, or at least as close as he’s able to from the cases brought before him. He also must in his heart hate the man-made law.

· That his goal in working as a judge be to help the oppressed and cease the oppression from them, and as much as he’s able decrease the bad and increase the good that happens to Muslims. He must also do everything in his power to enact laws that allow the Muslims to practice their Shari’a. He must keep it in his mind that he was not permitted to take this job except to serve Islam and Muslims. If he is unable to achieve this objective, and fails in his goal, then he has thereby lost the justification which permitted him to undertake this profession. He must also choose the judicial profession which is closest to the Shari’a.

· That he judge by the rulings of the Shari’a as much as possible, even if by a ruse, as the Prophet Joseph did when he pulled a trick to take his brother by the Shari’a, and prevent him from being punished for stealing according to the law of the king [Qur’an 12:76]. In other words, since he wasn’t able to rule by the Shari’a, he judged by that which was as close to the Shari’a as possible.

Page 29:

Fourth Question: Working on a jury in a man-made court

(Gives brief explanation of the jury system we employ in the West.) It is permissible for a Muslim to participate as a member of a jury with the condition that he rules in agreement with the law (comment: probably referring to Islamic law). This is because it gives him the opportunity to judge according to that which he thinks is right within the confines of the articles of the man-made law. Often this permits him to apply Islamic law to the case. The decision is made according to the number of votes on the jury, so having Muslims on the jury to express their opinions on the cases can have the benefit of introducing Islamic judgments to the secular judges. The Muslim could be successful in co-opting some of the other jury members to agree with him on the ruling, whereby the Islamic ruling gains a majority of the votes, which could contribute to achieving justice among people as much as possible.

(Quotes a fatwa from Dr. Sa’ud bin ‘Abdallah al-Finasan to support this viewpoint.)

Page 31:

Chapter Four: Referring Judgment to Foreign and Man-made Courts

First Question: Declaration that in general referring judgment to non-Islamic law is disbelief in Allah (kufr)

In general, referring judgment to non-Islamic law is disbelief in Allah (kufr), according to the explicit statements in the Qur’an. This is what the Muslim must evoke in situations which might warrant taking someone to court, even if he knows it is necessary. Allah said: “Hast thou not turned Thy vision to those who declare that they believe in the revelations that have come to thee and to those before thee? Their (real) wish is to resort together for judgment (in their disputes) to the Evil One, though they were ordered to reject him. But Satan's wish is to lead them astray far away (from the right). When it is said to them: "Come to what Allah hath revealed, and to the Messenger": Thou seest the Hypocrites avert their faces from thee in disgust. How then, when they are seized by misfortune, because of the deeds which they hands have sent forth? Then their come to thee, swearing by Allah: "We meant no more than good-will and conciliation!" Those men,-Allah knows what is in their hearts; so keep clear of them, but admonish them, and speak to them a word to reach their very souls” [Qur’an 4:60-63].

The Almighty also said: “They say, "We believe in Allah and in the messenger, and we obey": but even after that, some of them turn away: they are not (really) Believers. When they are summoned to Allah and His messenger, in order that He may judge between them, behold some of them decline (to come). But if the right is on their side, they come to him with all submission. Is it that there is a disease in their hearts? or do they doubt, or are they in fear, that Allah and His Messenger will deal unjustly with them? Nay, it is they themselves who do wrong. The answer of the Believers, when summoned to Allah and His Messenger, in order that He may judge between them, is no other than this: they say, "We hear and we obey": it is such as these that will attain felicity [Qur’an 24:47-51].

(Quotes from Ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who explains that this means that these people want to refer judgment in their disputes to the tyrant, whose judgment they prefer over Allah’s.)

Page 32:

(Quotes from Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman al-S’adi, who explains that Allah is amazed by the hypocrites who claim to be believers, yet want to refer their judgments to the tyrant, which is anyone who rules by non-Islamic law. For belief requires one to adhere to the Shari’a and its rulings in everything, so whoever claims to be a believer yet chooses the rule of the tyrant over the rule of Allah is a liar.)

(Quotes from Muhammad Rashid to the same effect.)

Second Question: The forms settled as forbidden or permissible

Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman al-Harafi stated that the forms settled as forbidden are the following:

1. Whoever refuses to refer judgment to the Shari’a, but rather refers it to man-made law is an infidel (kafir), guilty of greater infidelity (kufr akbar), and is outside the pale of Islam, even if he didn’t agree with it in his heart. (Quotes Qur’an 4:60).

2. (Page 33) Whoever likes to refer judgment to man-made law, even if he doesn’t actually do it, because liking infidelity is infidelity (kufr).

The forms settled as permitted are as follows:

· He who is complained against, and requested to appear before the courts of tyrants, for this is required in order to defend himself. (Quotes again from the story of the Negus to justify this position).

· He who is forced to refer judgment to man-made courts and laws, such as he who is arrested, or he who seeks political asylum fearing for his life, etc. Allah said: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty” [Qur’an 16:106].

Third question: Conditions for permitting referring judgment to man-made law

Page 34:

The Muslim living in a non-Muslim country has rights and interests which will be lost if they are not referred to for judgment, and his opponent will reject them if he refers to the Shari’a for judgment. The Muslim does not have power in himself to enforce the law, however the man-made law obligates the police to intervene and enforce it. This is an oft-repeated scenario for Muslims living outside the land of Islam. If they are forbidden from referring judgment to man-made courts in these situations, they will be deprived of their wealth and rights, and subjected to whatever their enemies bring against them. The issue becomes even more important when it involves referring judgment to man-made law for cases involving the rights of Muslims as a whole. This situation can possibly be better understood by referring to the large institution set up to demand rights for Muslims and fight against anti-Muslim discrimination, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). (Quotes from 2003 CAIR report on its efforts in the US, written by Arab Affairs Director Alaa Bayoumi)

Page 36:

It is a principle of jurisprudence that a general and public need brings the status of necessity. Therefore every issue which is needed by the Muslim general public is necessary and permitted.

(Quotes from Badr al-Din al-Zarkashi to support this point.)

Page 37:

(Cites Ibn Najim to support the same point.)

Among the resolutions passed by the Islamic Fiqh Academy which is part of the Muslim World League regarding the novel published by the one known as Salman Rushdie, was the third resolution: “The council declares that this person ought to be tracked down, and a criminal lawsuit filed against him and against the publishing house which published the novel for him, in the relevant courts in Great Britain. The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which represents Islamic countries, should raise this complaint and empower the best criminal attorneys to prosecute the case in the British penal system.” From this it is clear that they intended to refer the case for judgment to the British courts.

Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Razaq ‘Afifi was asked about this issue: “What is the ruling on courts which rule by man-made law?”

He responded: “If possible, one should not refer cases to them for judgment. However, if he cannot claim his right except by this means, there is no fault in it.”

Shaykh Salih bin ‘Abd-al-‘Aziz Al al-Shaykh explained that this means:

· It is required for a Muslim to be hostile to courts which rule by man-made law, and to dislike them.

· Do not freely choose to refer another to those courts for judgment. Doing this freely without compulsion is what Allah revealed: “They want to refer to the tyrant for judgment.” Note that He said ‘they want’.

· If you were wronged and you demand your rights which are guaranteed by the Shari’a, and you have no other recourse but to go to the man-made courts, and you have hatred in your heart for the courts, you are permitted to do so.

· Some scholars say “with hatred for the courts,” but there is no validity for the hatred. It is permitted for him to reclaim his right without hatred.

Page 38:

To summarize the words of the scholars, it is permitted to seek recourse in man-made courts if the following three conditions are present:

1. You are unable to reclaim your rights in any other way, because your adversary refuses to refer the case to the Shari’a, or he refuses to execute the ruling of the Shari’a.

2. You do not take more than the rights guaranteed to by the Shari’a; for if they ruled that you should receive more than your rights under the Shari’a, you do not take more than what you’re entitled to by the Shari’a from your adversary.

3. At the time that you go to the court, you feel hatred for it in your heart.

Without these three conditions present, it is forbidden to refer judgment to man-made courts. He who does so is in danger of apostatizing from Islam, Allah forbid.

Page 39:

Chapter 5: A Muslim Giving Power of Attorney to a Non-Muslim in a Dispute

The ruling on a Muslim giving power of attorney to a non-Muslim in a dispute:
Many Muslims have the need to empower a non-Muslim to plead on their behalf before (man-made) courts. Scholars have made clear that there is no requirement in Islam, in general, on granting power of attorney, except in limited cases where there is some disagreement, such as empowering an infidel (kafir) to pay zakat, or slaughter meat, etc. However, granting power of attorney in disputes has been permitted by most scholars, because the Prophet did so with Jews and other polytheists on several occasions.

(Quotes from Ibn Qudama and Hawashi al-Sharwani to support this)

However, many Maliki jurists have forbidden a Muslim from granting power of attorney to an infidel in a dispute with another Muslim. Their reasoning is that the infidel could treat the Muslim harshly. For this same reason, some of them don’t permit power of attorney to be granted to a Jew in a dispute with a Christian or vice versa, due to the enmity that exists between them.

(Quote from Imam Ibn ‘Arafa al-Dasuqi to support this idea)

Page 40:

I agree with the majority of scholars on the permissibility of a Muslim granting power of attorney to a non-Muslim, whether his opponent in the dispute is a Muslim or a non-Muslim, for the following reasons:

· The general evidence points to the legitimacy of entering into various contracts with non-Muslims.

· It can be difficult to find a Muslim attorney, and if one does find one often he is not as capable as a non-Muslim attorney.

· What the Malikites feared about non-Muslim attorneys humiliating Muslims are treating them harshly does not apply in today’s system of attorneys and laws, which prevents attorneys from abusing their opponents.

However, the door is open for those who are worried about a non-Muslim attorney gloating over or take advantage of the disputes to tarnish the image of Muslims generally and turn people away from Islam, even if these cases are rare. But as a general rule, it is permissible for a Muslim to grant power of attorney to a non-Muslim.

Page 41-45:

Closing:

(Here he simply summarizes the points made throughout the study, which I won’t repeat)

Page 45-47:
Notes/References

U.S. Government Allegedly in Talks to Release 50 Egyptian Prisoners Including Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd-al-Rahman

2012-02-29T07:41:00.000-06:00

This was tipped to me this morning by my good friend Andrew Bostom. JihadWatch also has a partial translation of it here.

Translated from al-Arabiya, 28 Feb 2012:

‘Umar ‘Abd-al-Rahman at Forefront of Egyptian-American Prisoner Exchange Deal

In exchange for the release of 19 Americans accused in the case of foreign funding of civil society organizations

alArabiya.net

The Egyptian government began taking steps to respond with the American offer to release 50 Egyptians being held in American prisons--including Shaykh ‘Umar ‘Abd-al-Rahman—in exchange for the release of 19 Americans accused in the case of foreign funding of civil society organizations. This is according to what was confirmed by Major General Muhammad Hani Zahir, an expert in military studies and international counterterrorism.

Zahir in comments to the newspaper 'al-Masriyun' said it was necessary for Egypt to exploit America's weak position, especially after condemning its citizens in cases affecting Egyptian sovereignty over its territory. He added that Egypt should not permit this exchange to take place unless the American administration agrees to release more than 500 Egyptians being held in American prisons, of whom the Egyptian foreign ministry knows nothing.

He added that the Egyptian foreign ministry asked the Egyptian embassy in Washington to take inventory of the number of Egyptians imprisoned in the United States. He also stated that the Egyptian consulate began taking steps to inventory the numbers of Egyptians imprisoned and being held up in investigations in various cases in the United States. He also added that among those imprisoned and whose files the consulate has studied is Shaykh 'Umar 'Abd-al-Rahman, the mufti of al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya, and who is currently imprisoned in America.

Zahir closed his remarks by saying: "In my character as an international expert on counterterrorism, corruption, and money laundering, I ask the Egyptian government to direct to the Americans accused in the case of unlawful foreign funding of unlawful civil society organizations the accusation of "supporting and funding terrorism" within Egypt. This is because all of the physical and solid evidence confirms their involvement in supporting terrorism in Egypt. This is what verily happened in Muhammad Mahmoud Street, Shaykh Rihan Street, and Mansur Street, and in the events of the Ministers' Council. If this accusation is directed against them, they will be condemned to death by hanging, or to do hard labor for life. This will force the American administration to carry out all the Egyptian requests, at the forefront the release of all Egyptians being held in American prisons and the amendment of the terms of American aid, to where they give cash like they do to the Israelis, rather than giving commodities which don't provide any benefit to Egypt to the degree that it diminishes Egyptian sovereignty."

Saudi Study: Nearly a Quarter of Children Raped; Up to 46% of Students Suffer from Homosexuality

2012-02-24T07:19:00.000-06:00

Video translated from clip posted on YouTube in December 2008. Clip originally aired on the Arabic-language satellite station 'al-Hurra', on the program 'Misawa'. Subtitled video is above, full transcript below (thanks to Nonie Darwish for finding the video):

Guest - More than 23% of children in Saudi society have been raped.

Host – So about a quarter of Saudi children have been--

Guest - About a quarter of Saudi children have been raped. Sixty-two percent of those people—

Host – Those children.

Guest - No, I’m sorry, the study was directed at university students. Twenty-three percent had been raped during their childhood. For 62% of those, the rape was never reported. This was because it was one of the victim’s relatives. In the study, it was mentioned that more than 16% of the rapists were relatives, specifically 5% were siblings, 2% were teachers, and 1% were parents. In another study, which was conducted by Dr. In’am (al-Rabu’i), who is the president of children’s studies at the Armed Forces Hospital in Jeddah, she mentioned, or warned, that in the coming years we will suffer as a society from extremely widespread cases of homosexuality. The reason for this is the increase in the cases of sexual assault of children (brought) to the hospital, as well as the societal violence inflicted on children. She also mentioned that the hospital had on average three sexual assault cases per week.

Host – How large of an area did the study cover?

Guest - I don’t know, this is just what she mentioned on behalf of the Saudi nation. It was published on behalf of the nation, and can be considered very reliable. In addition to that, there is a study from the Office of Societal Supervision, which is also very serious. This study reported that 46% of students in the city of Riyadh suffer from homosexuality. Twenty-five percent of students in Jeddah suffer from homosexuality. We must be aware of this in order to combat these numbers quickly. The society has become fragmented. When we have a percentage of students—children or teenagers—who are gay, this is a catastrophe, a true catastrophe. I mean, we don’t have a strong society. We should really look at this more seriously.

Host – This is a new thing in Saudi Arabia for newspapers to write articles on this subject. The studies which you mentioned, are they saying this is something new?

Guest - No, it’s not new.

Egyptian writer: "Who offends the Prophet is not the West, but we Muslims, for making Islam terrorist"

2012-01-26T06:36:00.000-06:00

It is certainly rare to see such blunt self-criticism coming from the Arab world, and I wouldn't be surprised to hear that Ahmad al-Aswani had received death threats for his outspoken criticism of Islam and Muslims. He makes a lot of good points here, though the only thing I might add is that it may have been Muhammad himself who made Islam terrorist--current Muslims only follow his footsteps.

Translated from elbashayer.com, 22 December 2011:

Who Offends the Prophet?
By Ahmad al-Aswani

I don’t believe that cartoons, books, or movies can offend any religion, or affect the faith of those who adhere to that religion with truth and conviction.

The ones who offend the Prophet are those who slaughter and blow up innocent people throughout all the world—from New York to Madrid, in London, Bali, Riyadh, Cairo, Kabul, and Baghdad—even now, after mentioning Allah and the Prophet under the banner of Islamic jihad. Protests come out in support of all this, and internet forums sing praises to the knight Usama bin Laden, the hero of the raids of New York and Washington.

Who offends the Prophet is a man like al-Qaradawi, who incites people to kill Jewish children in their mothers’ wombs (from an interview with Egyptian journalists in 1996), and incites people to carry out suicide operations. In the name of the religion and the Prophet, he declares jihad in Iraq, and innocent victims are killed.

Who offends the Prophet are those who demand that the world issue a decision preventing the disrespect of religions while they practice it themselves in every prayer in their mosques, schools (madrasas), and on their television stations. They especially disrespect Christians and Jews, and curse them in every prayer (after the Islamic bloc offered a decision on this issue in the Human Rights Council in the United Nations, the Saudi Shura Council objected to this decision because insulting other religions is one of the rites of Islam, according to what was published on the Saudi site al-Arabiya).

Who offends the Prophet is he who issues a fatwa, ruling that adults should be breastfed, and that the urine of the Prophet is blessed. It is he who allows hadiths like these to be studied in religious schools (madrasas) and colleges, such as the hadith of the fly, hadiths about holding the dhimmis (Jews and Christians) in contempt and humiliating them, hadiths about Paradise being under the shadow of swords, and thousands of other hadiths like these, whose mere existence offends the Prophet and Islam.

Who offends the Prophet is he who teaches children in schools (madrasas), especially those called Islamic, to hate Christians because loving them is forbidden. “[They are] your enemy and your religion’s enemy,” as the veiled teacher said to the daughter of one of my friends of ten years in the schools of the Islamic conquest (a private school in Egypt) in Ma'adi (southern Cairo). When her family complained, they were told, “This is Islam.”

Who offends the Prophet is he who believes that outward signs such as the beard, the mark on the forehead [from prostrating oneself], the hijab, the niqab, and the jilbab (Islamic robe) are duties of Islam, and declare people to be infidels and kill them because of them.

Who offends the Prophet is he who believes that women are 'awrah [i.e. something shameful to be covered up], and are banned from prayers, like dogs and donkeys. (Or who believe) as it says in the famous hadith in Sahih Muslim, that “women are deficient in intelligence and religion.” They forget that women are mothers, sisters, sweethearts, daughters, and wives, and are equal to men. It is lamentable that the majority of Muslim women believe in the correctness of these hadiths which insult them.

Who offends the Prophet is a man like Zaghlul al-Najar, who is called a scholar, and yet believes that natural disasters, such as hurricanes, volcanoes, and floods, are punishments from Allah for sinners. He also degrades the Gospel and the Torah, calling them made-up books. He does all this under the banner of the Prophet and in the name of Islam, and many uneducated people follow him.

Who offends the Prophet are those who publish myths among Muslims, such as Prophetic medicine, and the interpretation of dreams. They say that following them is according to the sunnah of the noble Prophet, to publish ignorance and backwardness, and many fall prey in their demonic traps.

Who offends the Prophet are the rulers and shaykhs of Arab nations who have transformed them into the last bastions of tyrants and dictators in the world. They turn to religious texts to justify their crimes.

Who offends the Prophet is not the West, but we Muslims, for making Islam terrorist, a hypocrite, a hater of life, nourishing on the killing of others in the name of jihad, warring against free thought, on the pretext that these are the fundamentals of the Ummah, which stands for nothing but backwardness and rigidity.

Are Egyptians Using Democracy to Vote Against Democracy?

2011-12-22T23:00:00.000-06:00

Many in the West have praised the "Arab Spring" as a pro-democracy movement, and are encouraged by the fact that elections in Egypt have (ostensibly) been largely free and fair. In the face of big victories by Islamist parties, some have even gone so far as to argue that the results are largely irrelevant; instead the "value lies in the integrity of the process" (1).

But what if voters use their new-found political freedom to vote for candidates who are expressly opposed to democracy and even the very electoral process they are attempting to ride to power? This is exactly what is happening with the unexpected electoral success of the Islamist Nur Party.

Most Egypt-watchers have been surprised by the electoral success of the Nur Party. Current estimates put the party's electoral gains at over 20% of the votes in the parliamentary elections, second only to the Muslim Brotherhood's (another hard-line Islamist party, which however knows better how to speak soothing words to the West) estimated 40-50%.

The Nur Party's long-standing opposition to democracy is well-known in Egypt. See the below 2010 video from one of its leaders--popular tele-shaykh 'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat--who was himself a candidate for parliament in the Alexandria region:

This is not just some embarrassing clip from long ago which was brought up in the electoral process in order to derail al-Shahat's campaign. When asked about his position on democracy and elections just a few weeks ago, al-Shahat responded that he continues to maintain the same opinion, namely that democracy is "disbelief in Allah (kufr) and forbidden (haraam)." However, to justify his candidacy in the elections, he offered his opinion that "Egyptian-style democracy is permissible, while Western democracy is disbelief in Allah" (2).

Perhaps explaining what al-Shahat meant by 'Western democracy,' other Nur Party candidates have affirmed that "the understanding of democracy with the meaning of people ruling themselves is disbelief in Allah." They also went further, arguing that democracy was merely "Masonic-Jewish propaganda" (3). One of the candidates also praised Saudi Arabia's application of Shari'ah-law penalties, which are generally much harsher than what Egypt experienced under Mubarak.

So the question remains: if citizens use their freedom to elect tyrants worse than the one they overthrew, can that really be counted as progress?

Source List

1) http://allafrica.com/stories/201112221145.html
2) Translated from Arabic-language article at Masrawy.com, 1 December 2011:

Representative 'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat: Democracy Is Still Forbidden

'Abd-al-Mun'im al-Shahat, a spokesman for there's da'wa salafiya, announced that he still holds the opinion which he declared a short time ago, that democracy is forbidden (haraam) and disbelief (kufr). He declared at the same time that democracy is the only means for solving the political differences in order to preserve the cohesion of the society.

After playing the video which shows al-Shahat declaring at a previous time that democracy is disbelief (kufr) and forbidden (haraam), (media personality) Dina ('Abd-al-Fatah) asked al-Shahat his opinion about this after he was about to win the election. Al-Shahat responded that he continues to hold the same opinion.

Al-Shahat said in an interview with media personality Dina 'Abd-al-Fatah on the satellite station al-Tahrir, that all of the electoral indicators show that he is ahead of his opponents, and has gained more than 60% of the votes in the Montazah Department in Alexandria.

The spokesman for the Salafi Call (ad-da'wa as-salafiya) does not believe that his entrance into Parliament despite his declaration that democracy is forbidden is political opportunism. He pointed out that he believes that Egyptian-style democracy is permissible, while Western democracy is disbelief in Allah.

Al-Shahat also believes that the cause for him leading his opponents in the elections owes to his religious and political background, as well as his participation in various debates and seminars.

3) Translated from Arabic-language article at al-Masry al-Youm, 8 December 2011:

Nur Party Candidates: Democracy is 'Kufr' ... and Propaganda from the Masonic Bloc ... We Should Return to "al-Bay'a"

A number of leaders and candidates from the Nur Party in the Department of North Giza (Egypt) stressed that the understanding of democracy with the meaning of the people ruling themselves is disbelief (kufr) in Allah. They believe that the political elite "are opposed to what the apostles followed" in relying upon the system of allegiance (al-bay'a) after the death of the Apostle, in order to choose the caliph for the Muslims.

In an electoral meeting which they held Wednesday night in a hall attached to the Eastern Mosque in Barajil province, they described ads in the streets from the Egyptian Bloc as "Masonic-Jewish ads." Shaykh Sha'ban Darwish--a member of the Nur Party High Council--stressed the need to change the philosophy of the current liberal system which the last two presidents, Sadat and Mubarak, produced, and which failed to promote the state to an Islamic system.

Darwish said: "If the Salafis strike the earth, it will bring forth money. The liberals should be ashamed of themselves and remove themselves from politics through the ballot box, because they caused corruption in the land over the last 60 years. Now they want to preserve their interests and benefits, which are connected to the Americans and the West."

Dr. 'Adil 'Azazi, who is at the head of the Nur Party list in the Department of North Giza, said: "Leaving the ruling to the people, or what is called democracy, is disbelief (kufr) in Allah." He pointed to the need to rely upon the system of allegiance (al-bay'a) to choose the caliphs of the Muslims. 'Azazi added that Islamic laws applied in Saudi Arabia, and especially in applying the penalties of the Islamic Shari'ah, have contributed to a decrease in crime.

Muslim Brotherhood leaders quote Prophet Muhammad at al-Azhar conference: "O Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him"

2011-12-22T00:12:00.001-06:00

While the much of the West was still congratulating themselves for their role in supporting the so-called 'Arab Spring,' Muslim Brotherhood members (the soon-to-be rulers of "the new Egypt") were at al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo on 25 November calling for genocide against Jews. The call came in the form of a recitation of an authentic hadith from the Prophet Muhammad, in which he declared that Muslims should fight against the Jews "until the rocks and the trees will say, 'O slave of Allah, o Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." The occasion was the commemoration of what the International Union of Muslim Scholars named "Save al-Aqsa Friday" (for previous reporting on this day, see here).

I provided the translations for the above video clips, which were expertly put together by Vlad Tepes. His article follows:

Two speakers from moderate, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, recite genocidal hadith at conference

Lots of people are clinging tenaciously to the notion that Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood are somehow the horse to back as compared to perhaps, the Salafist party in Egypt.

Here is a segment from 2 clips of speakers from the M.B. at a major conference at Al Azhar in Cairo (we remember Al Azhar as that is where Obama gave his famous outreach speech shortly after being elected and given the Nobel Peace Prize) where at least two speakers at the Azhar rally recited the canonical hadith calling for Jew annihilation.

One was Abd al-Rahman al-Barr, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood Guidance Bureau [clip 1]

Shaykh Muhammad Mukhtar al-Mahdi, professor at Al Azhar and head of the Islamic Law Society, did so too [clip 2]

Thanks to Andrew Bostom and Translating Jihad for this one.

There is much more on this, and misinterpretations of this (which is why this was translated and titled by us) at this link.

The English transcripts for the two clips follow:

Clip #1: Here is something which is extremely important. We must prepare the generations for the hour of jihad and conflict, which is not far off. The leaders of the Zionists said they are expecting a coming war. But I say you can even be certain of it, for the Prophet (PBUH) told us, "Fight against the Jews until a Jew will hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees will say, 'O slave of Allah, o Muslim, this is a Jew behind me, come and kill him'."

Clip #2: It is incumbent, therefore, on the Ummah to unite its ranks, and prepare for that day of which (the Prophet) (PBUH) informed us when he said, "The hour will not come until the Muslims will fight against the Jews until the rocks and the trees will say, 'O Muslim, o slave of Allah, this is a Jew behind me, kill him'."

Egyptian Parliamentary Candidate: Jizya Is Only Half a Dinar, and It's Taken from the Rich Christians

2011-12-03T20:38:00.000-06:00

This is from the salafi Nour Party, which apparently will be forming part of the majority coalition in the new Egyptian parliament. The votes haven't even all been counted yet, and already they're talking about implementing Islamic law to discriminate against Christians. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, as the candidate himself expresses below--it's not like these guys just "fell from the sky." We know who they are, and all along both the salafis and the Brotherhood have been very clear on the fact that they want Islamic law. Those of us with our eyes open know what that means--an assault on individual liberty, institutionalized discrimination against Christians, Jews, and women, and hostility and war against all non-Muslim countries. And yet the Obama administration and far too many Republicans tell us that this is 'progress.' Yeah, the same kind of 'progress' we saw when the Palestinians voted Hamas into power.

Translated from elfagr.com, 3 Dec 2011:

Candidate for the Salafi Nour Party in Assiut: Jizya Is Only Half a Dinar, and It's Taken from the Rich Christians

Muhammad Kamal, elfagr.com

A candidate for the salafi Nour Party, Ahmad 'Umran, expressed his surprise at being asked, "Who are you, and what is your role in politics?" He responded by saying, "They act as if we just fell from the sky."

He added, "The Copts should not forget that we were the ones who freed them from the hands of the Romans, and that jizya is only half a dinar, which is taken from the rich and given to their poor." This came during the Friday sermon at the Mosque of the Court in the city center of Abnub.

'Umran stated that they are planning to take their future in their own hands, and put into practice the Islamic Shari'ah. They believe that they must implement it gradually. 'Umran wonders at Egyptian law, saying: "The law which governs us in our Muslim country comes in three sections--first, statutory law, then customary law, and then the Shari'ah. So the Shari'ah comes in the last of the three sections."

Egyptian shaykh says it is forbidden for women to participate in the Olympics

2011-11-29T09:01:00.000-06:00

Popular Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad al-'Arifi last week called on the Saudi government to ban women from participating in the Olympic games, because it is "forbidden." Al-'Arifi explained that women are permitted in Islam to play sports, just not when they might mingle with men, or any men might be watching. He also described it as a slippery slope which could lead to women taking off their hijabs or tightening their clothes.

Al-'Arifi also stated that "Prince Nawaf would not like his wife or daughter to participate, and thus he should likewise be eager to protect the reputation and virtue of his Muslim sisters." Of course there's nothing wrong with trying to protect people's virtue and reputation; however, the fact that this only applies to women and not men is telling. Women under Islam are seen as sex objects only, which is why a man's female relatives must be covered up and controlled at all times in order to protect the family's honor.

Translated from Donia al-Watan, 26 November:

Al-'Arifi Demands that Saudi Women Be Stopped from Participating in the Olympic Games Because It Is Forbidden

Donia al-Watan (Gaza), 26 November 2011

Shaykh Muhammad al-'Arifi, member of the Muslim Scholars' Association and a well-known preacher, directed an appeal to Prince Nawaf bin Faysal, general president for the Protection of the Youth, in which he asked him to employ all legal means to stop Saudi women from participating in the Olympic games. He stated that Prince Nawaf would not like his wife or daughter to participate, and thus he should likewise be eager to protect the reputation and virtue of his Muslim sisters. Al-'Arifi also stated that sports is a desirable thing in Islam, including for women to practice sports. In general it is permitted. However, if it leads to women mingling with men, or uncovering their nakedness, or men watching them while they are running, falling to the ground, laughing, crying, fighting with another player, riding horses, performing gymnastics, wrestling, and so forth; and if cameras are filming this is and it's being aired by stations, then there's no doubt that it is clearly forbidden (haraam). Women's participation in the worldwide Olympic games, or in foreign or domestic public tournaments, over time could leads to acceptance of her uncovering her hijab, expanding the types of clothes she wears, and also shrinking and tightening her clothes, little by little.

He added that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a country which is distinguished throughout all the world and is special, for it is the Muslims' qiblah, and the birthplace of Islam and the Message. It belongs to all Muslims. They must see among us a faithful adherence to Islam, and respect for the teachings of the Shari'a.

The International Union of Muslim Scholars Wishes You a Happy "Save al-Aqsa Friday" (while Pushing for War with Israel)

2011-11-25T07:15:00.000-06:00

The International Union of Muslim Scholars is headed by the highly-popular cleric, Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is also the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Point being, when these guys issue a statement, you can pretty well consider it the view of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Here they warn the Israelis that any stone disturbed on al-Aqsa will be met with "heavy bloodshed"; they call for the Palestinian factions to unite against Israel; they call for the withdrawal from any peace initiatives with Israel; and they call for Muslims to revive the duty of jihad and prepare for victory against Israel.

In sum, this looks like no more or less than a call for war against Israel (translated from salahsoltan.com, 24 Nov 2011):

The International Union of Muslim Scholars Calls on All Muslims to Make Next Friday, 25-11-2011, Al-Aqsa Friday

24 November 2011, salahsoltan.com

The International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) calls on all Muslims to make next Friday, 25 November 2011, al-Aqsa Friday, and to stand with it physically and spiritually, and to give the Zionists a stern warning against trying to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque. (The IUMS) calls on the Arab and Islamic world to protect it. The IUMS continues to be deeply concerned for what is happening in all of the blessed land of Palestine, from the al-Aqsa Mosque and al-Quds (Jerusalem) to the West Bank and Gaza. (The IUMS is) especially (concerned about) Zionist attempts through all means available to target the al-Aqsa Mosque in order to demolish the Mughrabi Gate Bridge, which connects the Wailing Wall and the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque. This is in order to build an iron bridge to allow artillery, tanks, and soldiers into the courtyards of the al-Aqsa Mosque, and threaten the security of the mosque and of praying Muslims. This is part of a terrible Judaization scheme, which has grown to the point of 37 tunnels underneath the al-Aqsa Mosque at a depth of 90 meters, building 50,000 settlement units, and changing 200,000 Arab names into Hebrew names, as some authorities have frankly admitted.

Before this imminent danger and these repeated attacks, the IUMS calls for the following:

1 - The IUMS issues a stern warning to the Zionists against proceeding with this dangerous plan (attempting to demolish al-Aqsa), which would inflame the conflict in the region. Al-Aqsa is the first of the two qiblas (direction to which Muslims turn when praying), and the site where the Messenger (PBUH) ascended. The site is also considered sacred to our Christian brothers.
Our basis for this stern warning is the deep Islamic and Arab roots is the powerful sentiment of Muslims toward their blessed holy sites, in addition to the fact that the Arab revolutions have paved the way for unity in the Islamic Ummah, which contains more than 1 billion 700 thousand people. All of them are of one heart concerning al-Aqsa and al-Quds (Jerusalem). Let the Zionists know that every stone, even every atom of al-Aqsa (which is disturbed) will be met with heavy bloodshed.

2 - The IUMS calls on the leaders of the Arab and Islamic Ummah to bear their responsibility for every stone in the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque through the following measures:

A - Support the resistance with all available resources, which is the only option for ending the occupation and protecting the holy sites.

B - Withdraw from the Arab peace initiative with the Zionist enemy, which no longer serves any benefit.

C - Suspend all peace treaties and expel Zionist ambassadors which remain in the country.

3 - The IUMS calls on the Ummah and its intellectuals and their parties to make Friday, 25 November 2011, "Save al-Aqsa Friday" through Friday sermons, sit-ins, prayers, and peaceful demonstrations.

4 - The IUMS calls immediately for the union of the Palestinian resistance, to be one rank (Truly Allah loves those who fight in His Cause in battle array, as if they were a solid cemented structure.-Qur'an 61:4). (The IUMS) also calls on the entire Ummah to revive the duty of jihad in all its forms, and prepare for the hour of victory and the liberation of al-Aqsa, al-Quds (Jerusalem), and Palestine from the Zionist enemies. It is coming by the promise of Allah Almighty to the believers, saying, "And another (favour will He bestow,) which ye do love,- help from Allah and a speedy victory. So give the Glad Tidings to the Believers" (Qur'an 61:13); "And We gave (Clear) Warning to the Children of Israel in the Book, that twice would they do mischief on the earth and be elated with mighty arrogance (and twice would they be punished)! When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled." Allah has spoken the truth.

Doha (Qatar), 23 November 2011

(Signed)
Dr. 'Ali al-Qarah Daghi, General Secretary
Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, President of the IUMS

Popular Sunni Shaykh Cusses Out Shia Caller on Live Egyptian TV

2011-11-22T22:49:00.000-06:00

Feel the love as another stellar representative of the religion of peace, popular Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad al-Zoghby, berates and curses a presumed Shi'a caller on live TV, on the Egyptian station Safa, 29 August 2011. I wasn't able to find the entire show this clip was taken from, but based on what a few Arabic forum threads said about it, Shaykh al-Zoghby had spent most of the show discussing the crimes of the Shi'a, which apparently prompted this caller.

Translated from a YouTube clip posted on 29 August 2011:

Caller: How are you?

Host: Hello.

Caller: I also want to greet that mangy dog sitting next to you.

Host: You’re the mangy d—

Shaykh al-Zogby: Damn you, and damn your father! I’m the one who’s Muslim. I’m the one who’s pure. You’re filthy, your father’s filthy, and your back is filthy. I know what you’re good for, you scum. If I were there I would go after you and everyone in your village who is supporting you, and force them underneath these pure shoes, you disgusting filth, because glory is ours, and humiliation is yours until the final hour.

Kuwaiti Shaykh Explains and Justifies Islamic "Pleasure Marriages"

2011-11-22T11:07:00.000-06:00

(h/t Nonie Darwish)

Translated from video clip posted to YouTube, 17 July 2011

In the above video, Kuwaiti Shaykh Yasir al-Habib, a Shi'a, explains and justifies the Islamic practice of zawaj al-mut'a, or temporary marriage (lit. 'pleasure marriage'), which is in a sense Islamically-sanctioned prostitution. In the longer clip which I took this excerpted portion from, Shaykh al-Habib starts out by saying that Sunnis often try to embarrass Shi'a by saying that they're going to marry their sisters in a pleasure marriage.

Al-Habib responds by saying that, first of all, in Islam a brother has no authority over the actions of his sister. And secondly, he contends that Sunnis want him to deny pleasure marriage simply because some people find it repulsive, to which he counters that "the Messenger of Allah didn't find it repulsive." Then he turns the argument around, explaining that Sunnis attempt to deny pleasure marriage while accepting marriage with the intent to divorce, which is essentially the same thing.

He also brings up a hadith or saying from one of the companions of Muhammad, who said that, "We contracted temporary marriage giving a handful of the dates or flour as a dower during the life time of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and during the time of Abu Bakr until Umar forbade it because of Amr Ibn Huraith" (from al-islam.org). The last point about Umar forbidding it is where most Shi'a and Sunnis disagree--the Shi'a don't accept Umar as a legitimate caliph or successor to Muhammad, while the Sunnis do.

Subtitled video is above, transcript below:

I tell him, “Come on, if you’re a man, then give me your sister in marriage, a marriage with the intent of divorcing after one night.” I could imagine something like that, now that you mention it. You know? Now, even if you find this repulsive, the Messenger of Allah didn’t find it repulsive. The Messenger of Allah approved this marriage by recognizing it. The Messenger of Allah permitted and authorized (temporary) pleasure marriages. Now even if they later put it in a written hadith that he later forbade pleasure marriages, the important thing is that it was present (during the time of the Prophet).

If the marriage was by nature considered repulsive by the Shari’ah, meaning it was not pleasing to Almighty Allah and His Messenger (PBUH), then the Prophet from the beginning would not have permitted it. Why did he permit it? I mean, it wasn’t considered contrary to the honor of Muslim women. Why did he authorize his companions to marry Muslim women for a short time, and to “enjoy them (sexually),” [Qur’an 4:24] even with a handful of dates? A handful of dates is given to any woman to enjoy her sexually, that’s it. If you say that this is adultery, then you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of adultery, or that he legitimized adultery. If you say this is repulsive, you’re accusing the Messenger (PBUH) of being repulsive, or that the Messenger of Allah legitimized that which is repulsive, Allah forbid. Is it not so?

Pleasure marriage came to solve a societal problem. It doesn’t mean that it always has to be applied. However, if my sister did that, according to its rules and laws, whether she were a widow and her husband had passed away, or she were divorced, and so forth; if she needed it (for whatever reason), then this marriage would be according to the tradition (sunnah) of Allah and His Messenger (PBUH). There is no shame in this. No shame at all.

Female Candidate for Egyptian Parliament Affirms that "Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority"

2011-11-18T07:08:00.000-06:00

Courting the female vote, Islam-style.

Translated from Gaza-based Donia al-Watan, 17 November 2011:

Female Salafi Candidate for Egyptian Parliament: "Women Are Deficient in Intelligence and Religion, and It Is Not Permissible for Them to Be in Authority"

A female salafi candidate for Egyptian Parliament, Muna Salah, said to al-Sharq al-Awsat that women are deficient in intelligence and religion, and it is not permissible for them to be in authority or to occupy the office of the presidency. She defended her candidacy for the People's Council, saying that acting as a representative in the Council only partial authority and not complete authority, such as the presidency of the republic. She added that she seeks to apply the Islamic shari'a, including cutting off the hands of thieves, preventing the mingling of men and women, and specifying black clothes for women and white clothes for men.

While just one of thousands of candidates in the upcoming parliamentary elections, Muna Salah--president of the Manabir al-Noor Charity Association in Egypt--continues to provoke controversy. She is one of two veiled candidates in the parliamentary elections scheduled to take place in two weeks. [...]

This lady may sound crazy to you, but keep in mind that she's quoting directly from Muhammad himself, as recorded in Sahih al-Bukhari:

Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." -Sahih Bukhari 1:6:301

Saudi Religious Police to Crack Down on Women with Alluring Eyes

2011-11-16T20:43:00.001-06:00

The below translation comes from an article published today in Gaza-based Dunya al-Watan, and is also being reported in other major media outlets throughout the Arab world:

Saudi Religious Police Pledge to Pursue Women with Eyes that Provoke Fitna

Dunya al-Watan, 17 Nov 2011

The Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil (the religious police) in Saudi Arabia confirmed Wednesday that it will force women cover up their eyes, especially those which "provoke fitna."

The media spokesman for the Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil, Shaykh Mutliq al-Nabit, said in Ha'il (north) that "The men of the council will intervene to compel women to cover up their eyes, especially those which provoke fitna."

Arab media outlets picked up a short video clip on YouTube, which states that, "The Council for Commanding the Good and Forbidding the Evil in Saudi Arabia pledges to take the necessary actions against any girl or woman who has eyes which provoke fitna."

Shaykh Mutliq al-Nabit said, "The Council will compel the owner of those eyes to cover them up," pointing out that the Council "has the right to do that." A Saudi citizen entered the hospital at the end of last year after suffering stab wounds in his hand and back after a fight with one of the members of the Council in the Barzan market of Ha'il, after a demand from one of the members of the Council that he cover up the eyes of his wife who was with him at the time.

The District Court in Ha'il issued a ruling which justified the member of the Council and condemned the husband and a man who was with him for assault (behaving arrogantly towards another). The first was condemned to 8 months in prison and 300 lashes dispersed over 6 sessions. The second was condemned to 18 months in prison and 700 lashes dispersed over 10 sessions.

Egyptian Candidate for President Praises bin Laden as a Martyr

2011-11-15T21:46:00.001-06:00

(h/t theegyptianrose)

According to the Weekly Standard, the man featured in the clip above, Egyptian candidate for president Hazem Salah Abu Ismail, "may well follow Mubarak as Egypt's first Islamist president." If so then this video clip--which was posted on YouTube on 4 August, and later reported on in several Arab media outlets--might give us a frightening glimpse into what kind of partner in the War on Terror the new Egyptian regime will be.

Subtitled video is above, full transcript below:

And Usama bin Laden—may Allah be pleased with him—may Allah take great mercy upon him. I ask Allah to accept him with the righteous and the martyrs, O Lord. Do not imagine that a martyr is only someone with whom you've always agreed throughout your life. If you had a different point of view from him, and then he was killed, this would not negate his martyrdom. Now this man (i.e. bin Laden) had religion wealth, and he was able to spend millions in the path of Allah, and speak the word of truth with power. However, he preferred to sacrifice his flesh, his offspring, his family, and his wealth, and go to the front lines to work in the path of Allah. The most glorious among us are always the martyrs. May Allah have mercy on him. The testimony which he obtained was a great fortune. I suppose that he—and Allah is his judge now—is among those of whom it is said, “If only my people knew,” Allah-willing. May Allah take great mercy upon him, and I ask Almighty Allah that the Muslims may soon be able to avenge him, as well as all of the martyrs of Islam, such as ‘Abdallah ‘Azam, Ahmad Yasin, and others, O Lord.

Shaykh al-Huwayni: The Penalty for Apostasy Is Death; Only "Boozers and Druggies" Say Otherwise

2011-11-08T06:43:00.000-06:00

How many times have we heard Western so-called 'experts' on Islam as well as politicians cite the Qur'anic verse "there is no compulsion in religion" as an example of Islamic tolerance. According to Egyptian Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni, all of those people might be "boozers and druggies," because despite that verse, "Islam is a religion which has limitations and rulings." One of those, upon which all scholars are in agreement, is that any Muslim who leaves Islam must be killed.

This is taken from a video clip posted on YouTube in May 2009. The subtitled video is above, and the English transcript is below (thanks to Nonie Darwish for her help on this one):

"They say that freedom of conscience should be provided to every human being.... because Allah Almighty says, 'There is no compulsion in religion'." So it is like a druggie interpreting the Qur'an.

"There is no compulsion in religion?" True. "Whoever will may believe, and whoever will may disbelieve?" True. However, this is on the condition that you do not enter the Islamic faith. You are free. No one is compelled to believe in, or convert to, Islam. You're Christian? Be a Christian. You're Jewish? Be a Jew. You're in any other religion? Be whatever you like.

But you should know that Islam is a religion that has limitations and rulings. One of its established rulings, upon which all scholars unanimously agree, is that whoever enters Islam voluntarily, not forcibly--it is not permissible for him to apostatize from Islam. If he does that, the ruling upon him is death. You still want to enter the faith with this punishment? Fine. You don't want to enter? Fine? We don't need a curse. We don't want you either. This is the ruling in Islam. "There is no compulsion in religion"? Ah.

If your Lord willed it, everyone on earth would believe. Then will you yet compel people to become believers? I don't know anyone who has been compelled to enter into Islam. The offer was left to the early Muslims. They were courageous peoples. They were distinguished by the strength of their hearts, of their will, and their firmness in making decisions. Islam was offered to them, and they believed.

We don't know of anyone who has been killed simply for being an infidel. Nor is it permissible for anyone to kill someone simply because he is an infidel. Islam is a religion which was established on persuasion. No one is ever compelled to enter Islam. However, if he enters Islam, there are rulings. There are those who want to have freedom to reject Islam (kufr). If a Muslim disbelieves, there is a penalty.

But some say "There is no compulsion in religion." He doesn't pray? "There is no compulsion in religion." He doesn't pay alms, or perform the hajj, or fast? "There is no compulsion in religion!" What Muslim scholar has ever approved this? No one ever has, and no one ever should speak this nonsense. The only ones who advocate this are druggies and boozers. At a time when people are reaffirming the Islamic doctrine in every corner on earth, such advocates want to get rid of Islam.

Shaykh of al-Azhar: "The Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us"

2011-10-18T06:40:00.000-05:00

The Shaykh of al-Azhar, the Grand Imam Dr. Ahmad al-Tayib, by many considered to be the foremost authority in Sunni Islam, issued a statement yesterday condemning attempts to bring Western notions of human rights and freedom to the Middle East. Dr. al-Tayib explained that "the Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us," and that "opening the door for human rights from a purely Western understanding would destroy our homes and clash with our beliefs."

Of course, if one of us infidels says that Islam is incompatible with the Western understanding of human rights, we're quickly branded Islamophobes. But here you have the Grand Imam of al-Azhar saying essentially the same thing. So I guess either he's just a big Islamophobe himself, or Islam really does conflict with human rights. My bet's on the latter...

Translated from ikhwanonline.com, 17 October 2011:

Shaykh of al-Azhar: "The Western understanding of human rights is against that which is sacred to us"

By Usama 'Abd-al-Salam

The Grand Imam Dr. Ahmad al-Tayib, the Shaykh of al-Azhar, stressed that opening the door for human rights from a purely Western understanding would destroy our homes and clash with our beliefs and with that which is sacred to us. He relates this to the maxim, "He built a palace and destroyed an Egypt," saying, "Not everything which is a right for the Western man is a right for the Arab or Muslim man."

He added during his reception of Dr. Butrous Butrous Ghali, president of the National Council for Human Rights, today at noon, that human rights should not clash with that which is sacred to us, because many of those who brag about defending human rights have taken them as part of a booming trade under the auspices of globalization.

The Shaykh of al-Azhar called for the encouragement of all efforts to resist globalization, because it is crystal clear that America is currently suffering in every place and in every realm. This confirms that the culture of New York should not direct us in the East. We have a culture, values, and history which protect us from dissipating and melting away.

[...] (Goes on to talk about situation in Yemen)

The Grand Imam called for the protection of Arab and Islamic civilization, which is based on morals and religious values. He added that the civilization of the Ummah is led by faith and values, contrary to Western civilization, which is led by the interests of personal freedom. We need to breathe new life into the East, in every meaning of the word--in culture, economics, society, and so on. This will not happen except through hard, continuous, and independent work.

‫Muslim Brotherhood Leader: "Every Israeli who enters Egypt--tourist or not--should be killed"

2011-09-26T23:18:00.001-05:00

[Update, 28 Sep: A small correction in the transcript--at the end of the first line it should read, "to carry their coffins with their own hands."]

Last month Dr. Salah Sultan, a member of Yusuf al-Qaradawi's International Union of Muslim Scholars (IUMS) and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, declared on al-Jazeera that the IUMS would restore the fatwa they issued in 1994, which stated that "every Zionist who enters Egypt--tourist or not--should be killed."

Despite the importance of this fatwa for Egyptian-Israeli relations, this unfortunately received little attention in Western press. MEMRI did publish a short excerpt of the statements (see here), but I believe there is more in Salah's comments that we should be aware of, especially that this is not about mere retaliation for Israelis supposedly killing Egyptian officers, but rather it is about the desire to destroy Israel altogether.

The subtitled video is above, transcript is below (see the original Arabic here):

If they are not able to protect our children then we, the International Union of Muslim Scholars, will mobilize the Egyptian people, as well as the Arab and Islamic people, to carry their burdens with their own hands. A new revolution will be launched to uproot the Zionist entity. We consider that to be in fulfillment of a warning from Allah Almighty: “When the first of the warnings came to pass, We sent against you Our servants given to terrible warfare: They entered the very inmost parts of your homes; and it was a warning (completely) fulfilled” [Qur’an 17:5].

As long as they remain in Egypt, and kill our children, we will bring back the fatwa which we declared (previously) in the Cairo Conference of 1994 after the killing of 60 people who were worshiping in the al-Ibrahimi Mosque. Also the number of Egyptians killed from the (Cairo) agreement until now, exceeds 140 slain, all who were killed at the hands of the Zionists. In response to this, I said at that day, that every Zionist who enters Egypt—tourist or not—should be killed. We don’t kill tourists from any (other) country. We declare that the fatwa is specifically for those Zionists who destroyed our land and country, killed our children, and shed our blood upon our land. The incident of the killing of those officers will not be forgotten, because it was after the revolution.

Ka'b Ibn-Asad al-Qurazi was the one who said, to those Jews from Bani Qurayza, "O people! Do you still not understand?" We say to Netanyahu and the Zionists, "Do you still not understand?" Allah-willing, we want us, the children of Egypt and of the blessed revolution, which was led by those youth, giving thanks night and day, who led this divine, popular, and civilized revolution. I say that we should have a project to liberate Palestine--a fundamental, essential project, which every current, school, and personality should converge around, linked together.

I believe that the one who spoke best on the issue of confronting the Zionist entity, in all of the Islamic Maghrib--in Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco--I used to believe it was Dr. Abu-Zayd al-Muqri Idrisi. I met him in several conferences in Europe, America, and various other countries. He was stronger than any other person on this issue. However, when I heard a communist lawyer (speak) on this topic, he was stronger than all the others. This issue, the issue of Palestine, is an issue which everyone should rally around.

I want to remind you that the Arab League, when the decision was issued to partition (Palestine), and the problem was much smaller than where we are now--the decision of the Arab League was to raise up armed units in member Arab nations in order to resist the Zionist project. Did you know that? Did you know that the University of Cairo, under the leadership of Dr. 'Abd-al-Wahhab Muru, took the decision to halt studies in the university and take up arms? This was in the University of Cairo, the University of Ayn-Shams, and other universities.

Why is it that every child, every woman, is armed with all manner of weapons for defense, while we live like tame sheep, waiting to be attacked in our homes, for our land to be occupied, our goods plundered, our wealth squandered, and our gas and other resources given away, while we stand by and watch? I say that this is the primary mission of the Military Council. If it will not fulfill it now, then Allah-permitting, the will of the people will be done. I want to mention while we are in the Night of Power, or we consider it such, that there are 10 policy shifts we should move to in order to start a project to liberate Palestine, the captives, the al-Aqsa Mosque, and Jerusalem. [Here he goes on to name the 10 shifts, which are mostly slogans about unity and firmness against the enemy.]

Shaykh Muhammad Hassan: There is no compulsion in religion, but...

2011-08-07T22:24:00.000-05:00

Egyptian Shaykh Muhammad Hassan, who is one of the most popular and well-known Islamic clerics in Egypt and even throughout the Islamic world (there is even a campaign in Egypt to try to get him to run for president), emphasizes in this video that apostates from Islam must be killed. He argues, interestingly, that this does not conflict with the principle of no compulsion in religion, because no one is forced to enter Islam (or so he says). However, after they choose to enter Islam, they cannot be allowed to leave it. He contends that this is akin to treason, and every country in the world punishes treason by death. This is a very common argument from Islamic clerics and others who try to defend the killing of apostates, and take on the impossible task of reconciling this with the Western ideas of freedom of religion and conscience.

This video was originally aired on the Egyptian satellite station al-Nas, on Muhammad Hassan's program entitled "Ahadith an-nihaya," (Sayings of the End). I don't know the original air date that this clip was taken from, but it appears to have been some time in 2008. The YouTube clip I pulled it from was posted 28 July 2010. My English transcript follows:

The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: “It is not permissible (to shed) the blood of a Muslim who witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except for one of the following three conditions: (First), the life for the life…” This means the killer is killed. But you are not the one who kills him, and neither am I the one who kills him. But the competent legal authority is the one who is responsible for this. Otherwise, Muslim society would descend into chaos, with everyone killing whomever he wanted whenever he wanted. No—blood is sacred; blood is sacred. “It is not permissible (to shed) the blood of a Muslim who witnesses that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, except under three conditions: (First), the life for the life…” The Almighty said: “In the law of equality there is (saving of) life to you, o ye men of understanding” (Qur’an 2:179). “In the law of equality there is (saving of) life to you, o ye men of understanding.” “The life for the life”—the killer is killed. The punishment of Almighty Allah is carried out upon him.

“(Second), the married person who commits adultery”—I will return to him (later) Allah-willing, in another of the signs.

“(Third), the one who abandons his religion, and separates himself from the community.” The hadith is in both of the Sahihs (i.e. Bukhari and Muslim). “The one who abandons his religion, and separates himself from the community.” Islam does not compel anyone to enter it. This (concept) needs to be firmly established. Islam does not compel anyone to enter it. No. There is no compulsion in religion. But rather we preach (Islam) in truth, mercy, propriety, and humility. Whoever says after the preaching—whoever says after (receiving) the preaching and the call (to Islam), “No, I will not enter this religion.” We say to him, “There is no compulsion in religion.” Truth stands out clear from error. We recite the saying of Almighty Allah, “Let him who will believe, and let him who will disbelieve” (Qur’an 18:29). We recite the saying of Allah Almighty, “You have your religion and I have my religion” (Qur’an 109:6). Beautiful. This is after the preaching and the call (to Islam).

But if he enters Islam of his own free will and choice, he does not have the right to leave the religion of Allah whenever he wants, to shake the foundations of Muslim society. No, he does not have the right. Absolutely not. But he does have the right, after having (Islam) preached to him, to say, “I will enter” or “I will not enter this religion.” But to enter it just to leave it whenever he wants? No. This is something which is unacceptable in the religion of Almighty Allah. Show me a constitution anywhere on earth which grants this for its citizens. But rather whoever comes out against the constitution of any nation is accused of treason. Everyone familiar with treason knows that the penalty is death. So what do you think about the one who betrays the religion of Allah Almighty, the one who betrays Allah and His Messenger? “O ye who believe! Do not betray Allah and His Messenger, nor knowingly betray your trusts” (Qur’an 8:27).

Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't

Egyptian Shaykh: "We still kill him, even if he repents!"

2011-07-13T09:07:00.000-05:00

The above clip was taken from an interview given by Shaykh Abu-Ishaq al-Huwayni on the Egyptian satellite television station al-Hikma on 7 July 2011. Al-Huwayni here explains that whoever insults Muhammad, even if he later repents, must be killed.

Later in the interview, al-Huwayni went on to contrast this with the case of one who insults Allah. He said that insulting Allah of course makes one an infidel, which is agreed to by all Islamic scholars, yet the one who insults Allah is not killed--he is merely called to repentance. This is because even if the whole world insults Allah, it does not matter to him--it does not hurt him.

After recounting a hadith regarding Muhammad being mocked by poetry from the Quraysh, al-Huwayni explained that Muhammad "had complete authority to waive his right (to kill those who mocked him). But the ruler does not have the authority to waive the Prophet's right." Al-Huwayni reported that Muhammad could waive this right whenever he wanted, but after his death he retained this right, meaning no one could waive the right for him. That is why those who insult the Prophet now must be killed.

He then narrated another hadith in which Abu-Bakr, the first rightly-guided caliph of Islam, became furious with someone who had mocked him. Abu-Barza offered to kill this man for Abu-Bakr. Abu-Bakr explained, however, that this right (i.e. to kill the one who mocks the ruler) was not given to anyone after Muhammad; or in other words, only Muhammad had the right to kill those who mocked him.

He said all of this in the context of the current controversy in Egypt with the Christian businessman Naguib Sawiris, a billionaire and founder of the Free Egyptians Party. Late last month Sawiris tweeted a picture of Mickey Mouse wearing a Muslim beard and jilbab, and Minnie Mouse wearing a niqab, which was considered to be mocking Islam. Al-Huwayni did not say explicitly that Sawiris should be killed for mocking Islam, but did say that all of his companies should be boycotted, even if he only owns 10% share in the company.

Subtitled video above, transcript below:

Whoever insults the Prophet (PBUH), if he later comes and apologizes, and kisses the shoes (of the ruler), and says, “I want all Muslims, every one, to return and strike me with the soles of their feet”—does the ruler have the right to accept this?

I bring up this question, as it was asked of me. The answer is that it is not permissible for anyone to accept this. Then what do we do with him? We kill him! But he told you that he repented. We still kill him, even if he repents!

Shaykh Safwat Hegazy: "Jerusalem Belongs to Us, and the Whole World Belongs to Us"

2011-07-08T07:12:00.008-05:00

Update 11 July 2011: Some astute observers have noted that Shaykh Hegazy said in this video clip that Jesus was crucified, which appears to be a direct contradiction of what it says in Qur'an 4:157. This point was also brought up by Muslims who commented on the original video clip on YouTube which I used to make my translation. This is a translation of what the guy who originally posted the video said in response (see here): "On 18 October 2009, [Shaykh Hegazy] had a live show in which he spoke about this dilemma. He stressed that he is a Muslim, and that no Muslim disagrees with the fact that our Lord Jesus (PBUH) was not crucified. This is the belief that we have. He clarified that he meant 'the rock upon which Jesus (PBUH) was crucified, according to their view.' We ask Allah to reconcile and guide all Muslims."

In this video, popular Egyptian Shaykh Safwat Hegazy threatens Jews and Christians, and ultimately the whole world, saying, "Jerusalem belongs to us, and the whole world belongs to us." He states the Islamic caliphate will return, and that "every land upon which Islam has set foot will return to us." He makes poignant references to Qurayza and Khaybar, which are clear threats against the Jews, and also states, "we will kill anyone who has polluted the al-Aqsa Mosque."

It is important to note that Hegazy is not some kooky, fringe shaykh with no following. He is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and has been involved with several satellite television shows, including his show "Age of Glory" on the al-Nas television network. He addressed crowds at Tahrir Square in Cairo during the revolution against Mubarak, and could be seen standing directly behind Shaykh Yusuf al-Qaradawi when the latter led between 1-2 million Muslims in Tahrir Square in prayer after Mubarak stepped down.

This was translated from a video clip posted on YouTube 2 Oct 2009. Subtitled video is above, transcript is below:

If they destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque, we will build it again. We will liberate it. Just as the Prophet David did, we will liberate it. As the Prophet Adam built it, we will build it. As the Prophet Jacob built it, we will build it. We will cleanse the rock on which the Prophet Jacob slept. We will cleanse the rock on which the Prophet ‘Isa (Jesus) was crucified. We will cleanse the rock from which the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was taken up. We will cleanse this noble, pure rock, and we will build the al-Aqsa Mosque. So what if they raid it--the dust does not matter to us. The rocks and the buildings do not matter to us. Al-Aqsa belongs to us. Jerusalem belongs to us. Palestine belongs to us.

I say to Allenby, General Allenby, that the Crusader wars have not ended. I say unto General Gouraud that the feet of those who come near Saladin’s tomb will be cut off. I say unto them that if you are the descendants of the Crusaders, then we are the descendants of Saladin. I say to him, that in the year 1920, you said, “We have returned, Saladin.” I say to you today that you have left Damascus and Beirut, and your children and descendants will leave Jerusalem. I say unto you that we are the descendants of Saladin, we are the descendants of ‘Umar bin Khattab, we are the descendants of Khalid ibn Walid, we are the descendants of the Prophet of Allah (PBUH). We are the children of Islam, the children of prophecy, the children of ‘there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is the prophet of Allah.’

I say unto you Gouraud, we will return and we will kill anyone who has polluted the al-Aqsa Mosque. I say unto you that we will return, as the day of Qurayza from long ago. I say unto you that we will return, as the day of Khaybar from long ago. I say unto you that we will return. Jerusalem belongs to us. Al-Aqsa belongs to us. Jerusalem belongs to us, and the whole world belongs to us. Every land upon which Islam has set foot will return to us. The caliphate will return to us, on the platform of prophecy. The greatness and glory of Islam will return. Its justice will cover this land. I say unto you Gouraud, you Frenchman, that the land of Islam will return, and we will pray in Jerusalem.