IslamQA.org Logo

Duty of Muslim countries to help Muslims

Answered according to Hanafi Fiqh by FatwaCentre.org
Question

Does an islamic state ruled entirely by sharia has an obligation to help the muslims around the globe in any given condition?
Or should it first become strong, independent and free from agreements ?
And can it request help from kafir countries?


Answer

In the absence of clear texts from classical fiqh manuals, I refer to two cases from which we can make broader inferences for this question.

The fiqh manuals discuss the response of the global Muslim community (ummah) when an invader attacks a Muslim city or country. It is obligatory upon all residents to defend. If this is not sufficient, it becomes obligatory upon the closest Muslim city/country to help defend. If they do not intervene due to genuine inability, laziness or disregard for their obligation, it falls upon the next closest city/nation and so forth. The response to a Muslim state pressing needs – where life and limb are at risk such as in the face of a military or humanitarian crisis – should also fall in line with this sequence.

Another parallel to draw upon is the communal obligation for shrouding and burial of the Muslim deceased. Its obligation falls upon the immediate community first, and in the event of a genuine inability, laziness or disregard from them would it fall upon the next community/nation and so forth. From this, we infer that the state has an obligation to its people first and foremost, before other parties.[1]

However, this is not a mutually exclusive policy. One can look inwards and build their own economic and political stability of their nation. But should a neighbouring nation begin ethnically cleansing its Muslim population, the closest nation will be obligated to offer its support as far as possible.

Seeking aid from non-Muslims

Allah says in Q. 3:28:

The believers should not make the disbelievers their allies (awliyā’) rather than other believers– anyone who does such a thing will isolate himself completely from God– except when you need to protect yourselves from them.

The commentators have disagreed on the permissibility of forming political alliances with non-Muslims based on this verse. One group suggests that one can ally with non-Muslims if it is in the interests of the Muslim Ummah. On the other hand, some have objected stating that these verses have appeared throughout the Qur’an without qualification. Thus, through contextualisation, they infer that all forms of political alliances are forbidden, even if it is in the interests of the Muslim Ummah. Other commentators suggest that Muslims can only ally with non-Muslims from positions of strength, i.e., when the non-Muslim seeks aid from the Muslim and not vice versa.[2]

I have adopted the view of Mufti Taqi Uthmani who transmits the position of his father, Mufti Shafi Uthmani. They state that political alliances with non-Muslims are allowed so long as it does not bring harm to the global Muslim community.[3]

Islamic nation-states and dar al-islam

Before we conclude, I draw your attention to the difference between dar al-islam in classical fiqh texts and the Westphalian nation-state model. In the Westphalian nation-state model, the territory and affairs of individual states are sovereign. The Westphalian model endows citizenship upon its inhabitants and retains international relations with external nation-states. The nation-state is the pillar of international law as we know it today. Each nation has its defined territory and people can act in their own affairs without external intervention. This model is known as the Westphalian model because this territorial distinction in nation-states began following the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648.

The classical fiqhi notion of dar al-islam anoints the entire world into either Muslim abodes or others. Mufti Taqi Uthmani writes that from an Islamic perspective, there was always only a single dar al-islam.[4] While different dynasties and ruling parties had dominion over the various parts, and thus a framework for territorial distinction, all Muslim states allied together or even pledged allegiance as one, thus forming a unified dar al-islam with various self-autonomous regions.

Muslim nations in the contemporary age are Westphalian nation-states as the sense of a unified dar al-islam has long dissipated. In line with the Westphalian model, Muslim nation-states often act in their own state interests, often in opposition to the needs of the global Muslim community. Therefore, to shift back to an Islamic form of international relations, Muslim states need to look beyond the explicit Westphalian model and look towards entering military and political alliances with all Muslim states. This will ensure that the Muslim Ummah is united, despite having exclusive political dominion and sovereignty over their territories.

[1]              البحر الرائق شرح كنز الدقائق ومنحة الخالق وتكملة الطوري» (5/ 78): وَالْهُجُومُ الْإِتْيَانُ بَغْتَةً، وَالدُّخُولُ مِنْ غَيْرِ اسْتِئْذَانٍ كَذَا فِي الْمُغْرِبِ، وَالْمُرَادُ هُجُومُهُ عَلَى بَلْدَةٍ مُعَيَّنَةٍ مِنْ بِلَادِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ فَيَجِبُ عَلَى جَمِيعِ أَهْلِ تِلْكَ الْبَلْدَةِ وَكَذَا مَنْ يَقْرُبُ مِنْهُمْ إنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ بِأَهْلِهَا كِفَايَةٌ وَكَذَا مَنْ يَقْرُبُ مِمَّنْ يَقْرُبُ إنْ لَمْ يَكُنْ مِمَّنْ يَقْرُبُ كِفَايَةً أَوْ تَكَاسَلُوا وَعَصَوْا وَهَكَذَا إلَى أَنْ يَجِبَ عَلَى جَمِيعِ أَهْلِ الْإِسْلَامِ شَرْقًا وَغَرْبًا كَتَجْهِيزِ الْمَيِّتِ، وَالصَّلَاةِ عَلَيْهِ يَجِبُ أَوَّلًا عَلَى أَهْلِ مَحَلَّتِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَفْعَلُوا عَجْزًا وَجَبَ عَلَى مَنْ بِبَلْدَتِهِمْ عَلَى مَا ذَكَرْنَا هَكَذَا ذَكَرُوا وَكَانَ مَعْنَاهُ إذَا دَامَ الْحَرْبُ بِقَدْرِ مَا يَصِلُ الْأَبْعَدُونَ وَبَلَغَهُمْ الْخَبَرُ وَإِلَّا فَهُوَ تَكْلِيفٌ مَا لَا يُطَاقُ بِخِلَافِ إنْقَاذِ الْأَسِيرِ وُجُوبُهُ عَلَى كُلِّ مُتَّجِهٍ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْمَشْرِقِ، وَالْمَغْرِبِ مِمَّنْ عَلِمَ وَيَجِبُ أَنْ لَا يَأْثَمَ مَنْ عَزَمَ عَلَى الْخُرُوجِ وَقُعُودِهِ لِعَدَمِ خُرُوجِ النَّاسِ وَتَكَاسُلِهِمْ أَوْ قُعُودِ السُّلْطَانِ أَوْ مَنْعِهِ كَذَا فِي فَتْحِ الْقَدِيرِ وَفِي الذَّخِيرَةِ إذَا دَخَلَ الْمُشْرِكُونَ أَرْضًا فَأَخَذُوا الْأَمْوَالَ وَسَبَوْا الذَّرَارِيَّ، وَالنِّسَاءَ فَعَلِمَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ بِذَلِكَ وَكَانَ لَهُمْ عَلَيْهِمْ قُوَّةٌ كَانَ عَلَيْهِمْ أَنْ يَتْبَعُوهُمْ حَتَّى يَسْتَنْقِذُوهُمْ»

[2]              تفسير الرازي = مفاتيح الغيب أو التفسير الكبير (8 / 192): وَاعْلَمْ أَنَّ كَوْنَ الْمُؤْمِنِ مُوَالِيًا لِلْكَافِرِ يَحْتَمِلُ ثَلَاثَةَ أَوْجُهٍ أَحَدُهَا: أَنْ يَكُونَ رَاضِيًا بِكُفْرِهِ وَيَتَوَلَّاهُ لِأَجْلِهِ، وَهَذَا مَمْنُوعٌ مِنْهُ لِأَنَّ كُلَّ مَنْ فَعَلَ ذَلِكَ كَانَ مُصَوِّبًا لَهُ فِي ذَلِكَ الدِّينِ، وَتَصْوِيبُ الْكُفْرِ كُفْرٌ وَالرِّضَا بِالْكُفْرِ كُفْرٌ، فَيَسْتَحِيلُ أَنْ يَبْقَى مُؤْمِنًا مَعَ كَوْنِهِ بِهَذِهِ الصِّفَةِ. فَإِنْ قِيلَ: أَلَيْسَ أَنَّهُ تَعَالَى قَالَ: وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ وَهَذَا لَا يُوجِبُ الْكُفْرَ فَلَا يَكُونُ دَاخِلًا تَحْتَ هَذِهِ الْآيَةِ، لِأَنَّهُ تعالى قال: يا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا فَلَا بُدَّ وَأَنْ يَكُونَ خِطَابًا فِي شَيْءٍ يبقى المؤمن معه مؤمناو ثانيها: الْمُعَاشَرَةُ الْجَمِيلَةُ فِي الدُّنْيَا بِحَسَبِ الظَّاهِرِ، وَذَلِكَ غَيْرُ مَمْنُوعٍ مِنْهُ. وَالْقِسْمُ الثَّالِثُ: وَهُوَ كَالْمُتَوَسِّطِ بَيْنَ الْقِسْمَيْنِ الْأَوَّلَيْنِ هُوَ أَنَّ مُوَالَاةَ الْكُفَّارِ بِمَعْنَى الرُّكُونِ إِلَيْهِمْ وَالْمَعُونَةِ، وَالْمُظَاهَرَةِ، وَالنُّصْرَةِ إِمَّا بِسَبَبِ الْقَرَابَةِ، أَوْ بِسَبَبِ الْمَحَبَّةِ مَعَ اعْتِقَادِ أَنَّ دِينَهُ بَاطِلٌ فَهَذَا لَا يُوجِبُ الْكُفْرَ إِلَّا أَنَّهُ مَنْهِيٌّ عَنْهُ، لِأَنَّ الْمُوَالَاةَ بِهَذَا الْمَعْنَى قَدْ تَجُرُّهُ إِلَى اسْتِحْسَانِ طَرِيقَتِهِ وَالرِّضَا بِدِينِهِ، وَذَلِكَ يُخْرِجُهُ عَنِ الْإِسْلَامِ فَلَا جَرَمَ هَدَّدَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى فِيه  فَقَالَ: وَمَنْ يَفْعَلْ ذلِكَ فَلَيْسَ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِي شَيْءٍ. فَإِنْ قِيلَ: لِمَ لَا يَجُوزُ أَنْ يَكُونَ الْمُرَادُ مِنَ الْآيَةِ النَّهْيَ عَنِ اتِّخَاذِ الْكَافِرِينَ أَوْلِيَاءَ بِمَعْنَى أَنْ يَتَوَلَّوْهُمْ دُونَ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ، فَأَمَّا إِذَا تَوَلَّوْهُمْ وَتَوَلَّوُا الْمُؤْمِنِينَ مَعَهُمْ فَذَلِكَ لَيْسَ بِمَنْهِيٍّ عَنْهُ، وَأَيْضًا فَقَوْلُهُ لَا يَتَّخِذِ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الْكافِرِينَ أَوْلِياءَ فِيهِ زِيَادَةُ مَزِيَّةٍ، لِأَنَّ الرَّجُلَ قَدْ يُوَالِي غَيْرَهُ وَلَا يَتَّخِذُهُ مُوَالِيًا فَالنَّهْيُ عَنِ اتِّخَاذِهِ مُوَالِيًا لَا يُوجِبُ النَّهْيَ عَنْ أَصْلِ مولاته. قُلْنَا: هَذَانِ الِاحْتِمَالَانِ وَإِنْ قَامَا فِي الْآيَةِ إِلَّا أَنَّ سَائِرَ الْآيَاتِ الدَّالَّةِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لَا تَجُوزُ مُوَالَاتُهُمْ دَلَّتْ’

تفسير الراغب الأصفهاني (2 / 504-5): والذي نهُي عنه المسلم جزماً هو أن يوالي الكافر موالاة الأوضع للأرفع بالخدمة له والاستعانة به استعانة الذليل بالعزيز، لا أن يستعين به استعانة العزيز بالذليل والمخدوم بالخادم، فذلك مرخَص فيه، وذاك لما قال النبي – صلى الله عليه وسلم -: “الإِسلام يعلو ولا يُعلى” ومن هذا رُخص أن ننكح منهم دون أن ينكحوا

تفسير الألوسي = روح المعاني (1162/ ): وحمل الموالاة على ما يعم الاستعانة بهم في الغزو مما ذهب إليه البعض ومذهبنا- وعليه الجمهور- أنه يجوز ويرضخ لهم لكن إنما يستعان بهم على قتال المشركين لا البغاة على ما صرحوا به، وما روي عن عائشة رضي الله تعالى عنها أنها قالت: خرج رسول الله صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم لبدر فتبعه رجل مشرك كان ذا جراءة ونجدة ففرح أصحاب النبي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم حين رأوه فقال له النبي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم: «ارجع فلن أستعين بمشرك» فمنسوخ بأن النبي صلى الله تعالى عليه وسلم استعان بيهود بني قينقاع ورضخ لهم واستعان بصفوان بن أمية في هوازن،  وذكر بعضهم جواز الاستعانة بشرط الحاجة والوثوق أما بدونهما فلا تجوز وعلى ذلك يحمل خبر عائشة، وكذا ما رواه الضحاك عن ابن عباس في سبب النزول- وبه يحصل الجمع بين أدلة المنع وأدلة الجواز- على أن بعض المحققين ذكر أن الاستعانة المنهي عنها إنما هي استعانة الذليل بالعزيز وأما إذا كانت من باب استعانة العزيز بالذليل فقد أذن لنا بها، ومن ذلك اتخاذ الكفار عبيدا وخدما ونكاح الكتابيات منهم وهو كلام حسن كما لا يخفى.

[3] Mufti Taqi Uthmani, Islam aur Siyasi Nazriyat, 337-38.

[4] Mufti Taqi Uthmani, Islam aur Siyasi Nazriyat, 330.

Answered by:
Maulana Ikramul Hoque Miah

Checked & Approved by:
Mufti Abdul Rahman Mangera
Mufti Zubair Patel

This answer was collected from FatwaCentre.org, which is overseen by Dr. Mufti Abdur-Rahman Mangera.

Find more answers indexed from: FatwaCentre.org
Read more answers with similar topics: