Hijrah from Non-Muslim lands
Hijrah from non-Muslim lands to Muslim Lands
2012 Spring Session (March 25 to May 29 2012)
Class taught by Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo
Scheduled topics include the ruling of hijrah, the definition of “Muslim lands,” “non-Muslim lands,” the meaning of “being able to practice one’s faith.”
Recommended Text: A Conclusive Study on the Issue of Hijrah by Husayn al-Awaayishah
Time: Sundays 8:30 - 9:30 PM PDT
Course Outline:
Definition of the word Hijrah.
The Ruling of making Hijrah from non-Muslim lands to Muslim lands
The definition of “non-Muslim lands” and “Muslim lands”
The meaning of “being able to display one’s faith”
Theoretical and Practical Complications in today’s world
2012-03-25 Class Notes
We did a survey of various hijras in Muslim history in the last quarter. In this quarter we will discuss what comes to mind when we speak about hijrah, from non-muslim lands to muslim lands. And then in the next quarter we will discuss .....
We will begin with a definition of hijrah, then we will study whether it is permissible, or obligatory or haraam in certain conditions. What are the condition for obligatory / permissible, also we will seek what is the default ruling concerning Hijrah, and then we will branch off to other circumstances and their ruling. We will analyze that scholars put when it is obligatory or recommended. They put some conditions, we will discuss these conditions put by scholars. Another thing which is overlooked and not discussed, what is the definition of land which you are moving from and what is the definition of the land you are suppose to go to, do those lands where we are supposed to move do they exists now a days?
If you are a citizen of the United States, do you even have this option available to you, as compared to some others who have roots in different countries.
Clearly Hijrah is a big personal decision -- is a major change in your life, involve lots of time, difficulties, money etc and therefore should not be done on a whim, and therefore should not be done a very superficial fiqh understanding of Islam. It is not part of the Shari’ah to do things that will be harmful to them, not to make it have a negative effect on imaan due to the law and practise at the land which you have moved. The decisions you make are not just going to have you, it will affect you and your descendants. Thus we have to understand this very well before we make an decision.Most people like black/white answers. But not everything in the Shari’ah is necessarily black and white. There are something which are white and black E.g. alcohol, pork, riba.
Hijra is not like that. If we go back to time of Prophet (saws) there were Muslims living under non-Muslim rule in Abyssinia and in Makkah and the Prophet (SAWS) did not oblige them to make hijrah. There are lot of questions when it comes to hijrah. It is part of the accommodating nature that the Shari’ah does have some flexibility to it and takes care of different circumstances. We’re not compromising the shari’ah -- this is a built in aspect of the Shariah to make sure it is applicable in different times and places. Especially in this case, the people should understand A number of factors are involved.
In the introduction to the textbook by the publishers, they say the main reason they published the book was due to the tremendous need for a clarification on this tremendous act of worship. This issue has divided people from those who say it is absolutely mandatory to those who say it is no longer obligatory. These are 2 opposite ends.
Some of the authors cite different sources and many take different approaches. Some of the approaches that different scholars take might be more relevant to you than others. Author, himself in his introduction, he has nice advice at the end of introduction.
The author in his introduction says it is to the benefit of every Muslim in all regions of the world to read the text related to this topic and reflect on this topic while taking guidance from past scholars of this ummah. Then it is up to him to estimate his either remaining in his land or migrating or whether he should move from one region to another. Searching for that place of living that is best and most favourable for this life and hereafter. He must look closely at the state of Imaan, if it is increasing or decreasing.
The information is out there and it is upto to individual to study and analyze what is best for him. No sheikh in this time and age can help individual and the individual knows his state very well and thus he need to take decision and ask Allah to give guidance on this issue.
What we mean by hijrah as defined by Arabic language, “forsaking of ones home and moving to another place; going forth from one land to other. More specifically immigration from the territory of unbeliever to the place of believers.”
Most traditional books of fiqh translate Hijra as the migration from the lands of kufr or warfare with Islam to the land of Islam.
That definition has some term to it which needed to be exclusively understood. Which we will discuss going forward. What we will concentrate is moving from Darul-Kufr to Darul-Islam. We will look at what is the ruling on this. Most shariah term when they are used they have more than one meaning like term Jihaad, which has many meanings. When you say Jihad there is default meaning , similarly when you say Hijra the default meaning is migration from the lands of kufr or warfare with Islam to the land of Islam.
Is it possible that it could be Haram ? Yes, there are cases where it is haram, at the same time there are cases when it can be obligatory. Thus it is important to understand what is the default ruling and followed by how easy it is to follow the default ruling ? What are the conditions of default ruling ?
The author review different opinions of the different scholars over the year and he does not add anything from him. He is going through chronological order. The first one he starts with is from Ibn Al-Arabi (d. 543 H). We spoke about in last quarter, when the muslim land was expanding the question of muslim as community under non islamic law did not exist. In some of the earlier books only time they spoke about Islam is when a person converts to Islam in darul kufr. Back then it could have been rare thus they did not speak about this, until the fall of Sicily and Spain, this is the first time when the question arised when they was no longer under Muslim rule. Thus lot of discussion on hijrah come from later year.
What we come to know about this is that the scholars in the past did discuss about things which was relevant to their time. But now a days isnt the concept of hijra important case to be discussed especially post 9/11. Unfortunately people don’t discuss this issue as they say that there is no need to discuss about hijra. Even if you accept the fact that muslim community here to stay, that still does not deny the fact the specific individual need to think about whether or not it is proper for them to do hijra or not. Thus this topic need to be understood properly. This topic is still definitely relevant today.
There were many scholars who discussed the topic of hijra before Ibn Al-Arabi, thus we will start with those scholars which was not discussed by the author who were earlier to Ibn Al-Arabi.
Note: At the end of this class we will understand what is best for us as Muslims, things should not prevent us to move to the place what is best for Islam.
What do you think if we go back to the time of sahabah, would there be comments on the hijra (moving from Darul Kufr to Darul Islam ? If yes, what would be their comment about Hijra ? When the talk about hijra at that time is that hijra is not obligatory as for them the hijra was from Mekkah to Medina and there are number of statement recorded which eludes to this fact. There are statement of A’isha and Umar on this. Umar said there is no hijrah after the death of Prophet (saws). Ali said “Hijrah was something until Allah (swt) conquered his Prophet, Mekkah” . The main thing which came to the people’s mind at the time is the hijra from Makkah to Medina. But now the understanding of Hijra is not that we need to move to Medina.
In the time of Sahaba:
There are some statements of sahabah which was eluding to the fact what hijra means in today’s scenario. Ibn Abbas said that if you are living in the land where people are committing sins then you have to leave that land. He used the term “fakhroju minha”, in stated this in relation to the verse of Quran [ankabut: 56].
In the time of Tabieen:
2012-04-01 Class Notes
Shaikh has a question left over from last time. We have two different hadiths about hijrah, #1 Laa hijrah baad al Fath - There is not Hijrah after Fath and #2 Hijrah is not discontinued. How do we know that hadith #1, does not abrogate hadith #2?
Hadith #2 is a statement of fact, and the statement of facts cannot be abrogated. Is this laa an-nahi or laa An-Nafi, What kind of negation is it? It is laa An-Nafi -- but it is specific to the migration to Madinah.
Prophet said that Hijrah will continue until day of judgement. Every statement of prophet is true and we know that the prophet did not make false statements. So the second statement is true and it is not abrogated by the hadith #1.
Abrogation is not easy to prove. But sometimes people make theories, such as theories about different surahs of the quran are related to one another, and based on that fact they reject hadith related to asbaab al nazool or events related to the verses. Shaikh is reminding us not to fall victims to these theories and do not get confused that hijrah has been abrogated. It is most definitely not abrogated. The first hadith simply states that there is no hijrah to Madinah after fath al Makkah.
Opinions about hijrah -- a chronological approach
What we are looking for are the proofs, the conditions, etc and what are some of the points that are most relevant to us, and see how different madhabs developed a view and stuck to it closely.
The recommended book covers this topic starting from Ibn ‘Arabi, Appendix covers no.of contemporary scholars. We will start with much before Ibn ‘Arabi. Also we will listen to a lecture by a contemporary time.
Opinions about Hijrah during the Time of Tabieen:
Opinion of Al Hassan al Basri
It is not surprising that if we don’t find scholars of hijrah at the time, as this was not seen as issue. If we go back to the time of Al Hassan Al-Basri, is speaking light of Quran Surah 4 verse 90, this verse is talking about fighting those people who are allied with disbelievers.
Sahih International
Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty or those who come to you, their hearts strained at [the prospect of] fighting you or fighting their own people. And if Allah had willed, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. So if they remove themselves from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then Allah has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.
The verse is not directly related to Hijrah, it is talking about muslims fighting Jihad. Hasan Al Basri says “the ruling for this verse is affirmed regarding everyone who lives in the darul harb. It is obligatory for them to make hijrah to darul islam.
Al-Jassas quotes Hasan Al-Basri and in which Hasan says “If an individual goes to join darul harb (land fighting against Islam), and he does not apostate from Islam, he becomes of apostate because of his living Darul Islam.” Al-Jassas disagrees with Al-Basri and says that there are evidences proving otherwise.
Opinion of Imam Maalik
Imam Maalik was speaking about someone who is a businessman -- and asking whether someone is allowed to go into ard al harb أرض الحرب -- the lands fighting against Islam. Sahnoon (compiler of maliki fiqh) he said Imam Malik hated that with great deal, the person should not go their lands in which the rules of shirk will be applied to him.
Allah swt says in Surah 4 verse 100
Sahih International
And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him - his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah . And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.
Al-Qurtubi quotes Imam Malik and says “This verse is evidence that no one should reside in which the salaf are being abused or where people practise and acting the way which is contradicting the Haqq i.e. truth”
Hasan al-Basri and Imam Malik has have strongest view of Hijrah. Al-Wansharisi is more stringent scholar, he is many centuries away and we will discuss his opinion later on.
Opinion of Imam Shafi
Imam Ash-Shafi, a student of Imam Malik, what was his view? Imam Shafi says, “the sunnah of Prophet (saws) indicates that hijrah is obligatory on the one who is able to do it, if he is subjected to fitnah on account of his religion in the land in which he accepts Islam. Because the Prophet (saw) permitted a group to stay in Makkah after their conversion if they did not fear fitnah. He also used to order his armies, if you emigrate you’ll be entitled to what Muhajir are entitled to otherwise they’ll be treated like bedouins. Commenting on this, he said, the fact that Prophet (saw) gave a choice shows the permissibility.”
Evidence about al-abbas ibn abdul-muttalib why did Abbas say in Makkah? this has contradictory reports. To the point, Abdullah ibn Abbas he said that we were from among those who were mustadafeena (weakened in Makkah). Other reports convey that he was given permission to stay there and even to hide his islam.
So now we have two different views, one from Imam Maalik and another from Imam Shafi. One is that you don’t even enter the land of harb even if it is for trade, the other is, if it’s difficult for you to apply your deen then you have to make hijrah.
Opinion of Abu Hanifah
Abu Hanifah himself did not make any statements about hijrah, sheikh could not find anything explicitly. His students had some opinions which the shaikh did not describe.
Opinion of Ahmed bin Hanbal
Even Ahmed bin Hanbal, the closest thing the sheikh could see was he was asked about someone taking his family to the borders of the muslim/non-muslim state (garrison town), he didn’t like it. He said, I fear he’s exposing his descendents to the possibility of influence from the kuffar. So we can derive based on this what Imam Ahmed’s opinion would be. Can we derive any kind of mafhum from this ? This shows Imam Ahmed was not in favor of living in the land of non Muslims.
Opinion of Al Mawardi الماوردي (d. 450H)
Al-Mawardi (Hanbali scholar), very interesting statement. He said “If a muslim is able to declare his religion in any country of darul kufr, then that land is dar Islam. It is preferred for that individual to stay there then to leave it out of the hope that others would enter islam”. what he’s stating, one of the first to introduce very clearly, if you can openly practice islam in any land, this means according to this view, you don’t have to make hijrah. What does that mean? we’ll talk later. What he’s saying is going further, if you can openly practice, it makes that land Dar Islam, for you to stay there is better because others can become muslims because of you than leaving it. If you leave it, it may become dar-ul-kufr again.
Ash-Shawkani doesn’t like this opinion at all. You can see already, the differences in opinion. We need to concentrate on the evidence and what best fits us. Us as a whole or even us as an individual by himself.
Opinion of Ibn Hazm (d. 456H)
Was from Andalusia and never left it even for making hajj. Footnote: Ibn Hazm never even made hajj that’s why some of his fatawa about hajj are strange. Like safa/marwa, he says down and back is one. Because he never been there, he didn’t know.
In his case, he’s talking about going and trading in darul-harb (since that is the most common case brought up in earlier case). You don’t see the case of someone wanting to live there but most cases were about making money out of darul-harb. Lot of the fatawa therefore are based around that. He takes the view of Imam Malik, if the laws of the unbeliever are going to be applied to the businessmen. He also said, whoever enters amongst them, except for jihaad or delivering sultan’s message, then an hour’s residence will be considered residence. one of the first one sheikh saw to use a particular hadeeth as evidence in his discussion.
This hadith, Prophet (saws) said: “I am free from any muslim who resides amongst the mushrikeen.” When he was asked about it he said, “the two fires should not be visible amongst them”. If you’re close enough to another people, that means your fire can be seen from them. Also, like a muslim army is coming, they’ll see lots of fire close together and would think it was a big army encampment. Ibn Atiq said, “two fires that differ, one calls to Allah and the other calls to shaitan.” al-Albani considers this hadith sahih. This hadith is one of those hadith what the earlier scholars had to say about it differs from the later scholars.
Virtually all of the earlier scholars seem to believe this hadith is mursal (name of sahabah is missing) -- conclusion of Al-Bukhari, Abu Hatim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi and Daaraqutni. The link b/w the tabi’ and the Prophet (saw) is missing. We don’t know who was there b/w the Prophet (saw) and the Tabi’.
Among the scholars of hadith, mursal is a kind of weak hadith. Some of the schools of fiqh accept and they act on the basis of mursal ahadeeth. Hanafis and Malikis in particular, you’d think they’d accept this hadith. Ibn Abdul Barr, great maliki scholar, used this hadith as well (he was also a scholar of hadeeth). But it is the Strongest kind of weak hadeeth. Is that a compliment for weak hadith?
Al-Albani recognizes the weakness in the hadeeth but he’s basing it on other supporting evidence. Theoretically, hanafis and malikis should accept this hadeeth as they accept mursal hadeeth, but sheikh has never seen a hanafi scholar quote this hadith. One thing we have learned about supporting evidence, you have to look at very closely at what is the supporting evidence. Sometimes they’d take something as supporting evidence, like in this case, al-albani quotes the hadith of Jarir, in which Jarir said, “i came to the Prophet (saw) to make baya’ to him and what conditions to make baya, Prophet (saw) told him, make baya with you that worship Allah alone, establish salaah, give zakaah, act sincerely towards muslims, and you separate from the Mushrik.” That is what al-Albani is using as supporting evidence.
What do you think about that? Many times Prophet (saw) took baya from different people and gave them different conditions, like Bayat-An-Nisa which he took from females thats why it does not have Jihad in it. Thus there are different kinds of baya’ that Prophet (saw) took from people, to go from this and to support the other hadeeth, does that sound a little bit of a stretch? one is a very strong statement the other can be very specific. The narration from Jarir is authentic.This is recorded in An-Nisai, Bayhaqi and other places
Then he says, it also has supporting evidence, where a bedouin had in writing from the Prophet (saw), “Bear shahadah, salaah, zakaah, and separate from the mushrikeen, and give 1/5th of the booty, then you have protection from Allah and His messenger.”
He has another report from Bahz b. Hakim, from Father and from Grandfather “Allah will not accept any good deeds from polytheist, until he lives polytheism and becomes muslim.”
Sheikh disputes the view that this is saheeh -- he would suggest that it is da’eef.
Abu Taahir Al-Zaee also says it is weak.
We also see the context -- it seems that there were Muslims living among the Mushriks and the Muslim armies attacked. They made sujood but were killed anyway. The Prophet (SAWS) asked that they be paid half the blood money. He then said this hadith.
We do know that the people stayed in Abyssinia, and that certain Arab tribes were not required to make hijrah.
2012-04-08 Class Notes
Analysis of the evidence that hijrah is obligatory
Today’s lecture might be the most important lecture of this quarter. We are going to take a look at the evidence for the opinion that hijrah is obligatory.
One of the thing key thing we have to do is, We have to look a the hadith of the prophet, if it commands us to do something, we should do so. One of the issues is that the hadith of the Prophet (SAWS) is not analyzed, studied and critiqued in the manner it deserves.
Why are hadith not studied in the manner that it deserves?
There are number of reasons why this happens, A few possible reasons:
1. Our scholars are trying to do too much
To do takhreej on 10,000 hadith is not as easy as it seems. For Sh, one hadith takes over a month.
There are certain hadith which in almost every lecture will be mentioned. Yet the Sh has never seen someone do an intensive study of the hadith.
Why? So you have all of the facts in front of you. The ultimate goal that we are after is the truth and we should not care whether that truth is consistent with our preconceived notions. Many ulema said that truth is a lost child. If there is a child that is lost, the whole community is worried about it, and we don’t care who finds the child as long as the child is found. Same should be in the case of truth, as long as someone gets to the truth then people should take it.
Especially for hijrah -- hijrah is a big step. If it’s done incorrectly, it could be harmful in some cases. So we need to be sure that we are on a bayyinah. Above all, these are the hadith of the Prophet (SAWS) and we need to know what we can quote and what we can’t.
Sources from Qur’an and Hadith that can be used:
In the chapter in the recommended textbook for this class (A Conclusive Study on the Issue of Hijrah by Husayn al-Awaayishah), it mentions various proofs which includes the following: ??????
1. Surah Nisa 97-100
2. Surah Anfaal 72-73
3. Hadith: There is no hijrah after fath
4. Hadith: Whoever keeps intimate relations with a disbeliever and resides with him is just like him. Sound hasan according to Albani.
5. Hadith: I am free of every Muslim who dies amongst the believers. Why? Because the two fires should not see each other.
6. Hadith Jarir
7. Hadith: Allah does not accept the deeds of a believer until he separates from the Muslism.
Footnote: Shaikh becomes angry or gets his blood boiling if a scholar gets the basics of the hadith wrong or become haphazard when discussing the hadith. Since this is the basic foundation of our deen and we should be very careful when discussing hadith.
Hadith #1: Hadith recorded from Jarir b. Abdullah
حَدَّثَنَا هَنَّادٌ، حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو مُعَاوِيَةَ، عَنْ إِسْمَاعِيلَ بْنِ أَبِي خَالِدٍ، عَنْ قَيْسِ بْنِ أَبِي حَازِمٍ، عَنْ جَرِيرِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ، أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم بَعَثَ سَرِيَّةً إِلَى خَثْعَمٍ فَاعْتَصَمَ نَاسٌ بِالسُّجُودِ فَأَسْرَعَ فِيهِمُ الْقَتْلُ فَبَلَغَ ذَلِكَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَأَمَرَ لَهُمْ بِنِصْفِ الْعَقْلِ وَقَالَ " أَنَا بَرِيءٌ مِنْ كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ يُقِيمُ بَيْنَ أَظْهُرِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ " . قَالُوا يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ وَلِمَ قَالَ " لاَ تَرَايَا نَارَاهُمَا "
Narrated Qais bin Abu Hazim:
From Jarir bin 'Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah (saws) sent a military expedition to Khath'am. So some people (living there) sought safety by prostrating, but they were met quickly and killed. News of this reached the Prophet (saws) upon which he commanded that they be given half of the 'Aql (blood money). And he said: "I am free from every Muslim that lives among the idolaters." They said:"O Messenger of Allah: How is that ?" He said: "They should not see each other's campfires."
Prophet (SAWS) sent an expedition to Khath’am where some sought protection by making sujood and he ordered that half the blood money be paid. Story + Statement.
When the prophet’s expedition is coming to their town, they are trying to show that their Muslims by performing sajdah. They went into sajdah in order to show that they are Muslims. Prophet’s army came and killed them. And if they are killed by mistake, then their survivors are owed blood money. And prophet made the statement above, implying that they are not deserving of entire blood money and they were not deserving of the same blood money as Muslims who were living in Muslim land, as opposed to the tribe living in non Muslim land.
Al Albaani says that this hadith is sahih without the story. What is al Albaani saying?
He admits that the chain of this hadith has a problem. All of the scholars as discussed earlier said that this is a mursal hadith which is a kind of weak hadith. Some of the fiqh madhabs accept this hadith. The important point here is that Al-Albani pointing that this hadith by itself as weak and he accepts the part that “Ana bari minkum” because he has supporting evidence to this. Thus this is Hasan li ghairihi. Since this bit is part of the whole story and it is little bit strange to accept a part of the hadith and say the rest has weakness.
Earlier scholars rejected it as mursal and contemporary scholars concluded it was weak, including: Al-Muqbil Ibn Haadi, he tells us what the earlier scholar said which is mursal. Sh’s opinion: any time the earlier and later scholars disagree over hadith, this raises a red flag. Since latter scholar has some methodology which ends up in the differences in the opinion with the earlier scholar. Al-Muqbil Ibn Haadi rejects this. Mustafa Al-Adawi in his silsilah al-tafaseer says that this hadith is mursal. Al-Shafi’i also had some doubt about it -- he said that if this story was true, he says the Prophet (SAWS) would not be obliged to pay any blood money in the case..
Note: Sh is not saying that the story or statement or meaning is unacceptable. We find in the Quran that “S. Anfaal v 72” says: you have no authority over them until they make hijrah.
Number of scholars took the same hadith, specially among the shafi’ee scholars, including Ibn Hajar, said this hadith is to b understood to be referred to the muslim who is not able to practise his deen in the land of Kuffar.
Ibn Uthaimeen also points out the weakness in this hadith, then he says that if you are going to be living with kuffar it is going to affect the person.
Zainuddin al-Iraqi from the time of Ibn Hajar also says this is weak. Thus there are number of scholars who reject it.
At the same time, There’s a number of other scholars that seems to suggest they accept it, e.g. Ibn Al-Qayyim in Zad Al-Ma’aad, Ibn Katheer in his tafseer also uses this hadith. Both students of Ibn Taymiyyah, but Ibn Taymiyyah never seemed to refer to it. Bin Baz also seems to accept it. Many of the books of tafseer also quote it, but they are not scholars of hadith: Zamakhshari, Ar-Razi, Baydawi, Tha’labi.
In the books of Fiqh, Al-Jasas, Al-Sarakhsi from Hanafi. Ibn Hazm also uses this.
The only hadith scholar from the early times that accepted it was Taqi-ud-din al-subki. Al-Bukhari and others studied it and they said this is mursal. He said: It is narrated in mursal form and it is connected chain, he is taking a general principle, if the mursal reports is ….”
The strongest view on this hadith is that, the hadith by itself is weak, by taking a part of it and taking supporting evidence for this has issue as well.
Hadith #2: Bahaz b. Hakeem he is the grandson of mu’yawiyyah Al-Baida who is the companion of Prophet (saws). Note: The treatment of this hadith upsets Sh’s more than previous hadith. This hadith has one chain to it and it is one incident and the incident has been narrated in two different ways and two different way has different implication. Yet both different narrations have been ranked as hassan lighairihi by some of the scholars.
"I said: 'O Prophet of Allah, I did not come to you until I had sworn more than this many times" the number of fingers on his hands "that I would never come to you or follow your religion. I am a man who does not know anything except that which Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, and His Messenger teach me. I ask you by the Revelation of Allah, with what has your Lord sent your to us? He said: "With Islam.' I said: 'What are the signs of Islam?' He said: 'To say, I submit my face to Allah and give up Shirk, and to establish the Salah and to pay the Zakah."' (Hasan)
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا مُعْتَمِرٌ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ بَهْزَ بْنَ حَكِيمٍ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ قُلْتُ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ مَا أَتَيْتُكَ حَتَّى حَلَفْتُ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ عَدَدِهِنَّ - لأَصَابِعِ يَدَيْهِ - أَنْ لاَ آتِيَكَ وَلاَ آتِيَ دِينَكَ وَإِنِّي كُنْتُ امْرَأً لاَ أَعْقِلُ شَيْئًا
إِلاَّ مَا عَلَّمَنِي اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَرَسُولُهُ وَإِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ بِوَحْىِ اللَّهِ بِمَا بَعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ إِلَيْنَا قَالَ " بِالإِسْلاَمِ " . قُلْتُ وَمَا آيَاتُ الإِسْلاَمِ قَالَ " أَنْ تَقُولَ أَسْلَمْتُ وَجْهِيَ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَتَخَلَّيْتُ وَتُقِيمَ الصَّلاَةَ وَتُؤْتِيَ الزَّكَاةَ " .
[NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE CORRECT HADITH]
The second narration is similar but appends that “Allah will not accept any good deed from a polytheist who committed polytheism after having become Muslim until he leaves the polytheists and joins the Muslims”
"I said: 'O Prophet of Allah! I did not come to you until I had sworn more that this many times' - the number of fingers on his hands - 'that I would never come to you or follow your religion. I am a man who does not know anything except that which Allah and His Messenger teach me. I ask you by the face of Allah, the Mighty and Sublime, with what has your Lord sent you to us? He said: 'With Islam.' I said: What are the signs of Islam? He said; To say: I submit my face to Allah and give up Shirk, and, to establish the Salah and to pay Zakah. Each Muslim is sacred and inviolable to his fellow Muslim; they support one another. Allah does not accept my deed from an idolater after he becomes a Muslim, until he departs from the idolaters and joins the Muslims."' (Hasan)
أَخْبَرَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الأَعْلَى، قَالَ حَدَّثَنَا الْمُعْتَمِرُ، قَالَ سَمِعْتُ بَهْزَ بْنَ حَكِيمٍ، يُحَدِّثُ عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ جَدِّهِ، قَالَ قُلْتُ يَا نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ مَا أَتَيْتُكَ حَتَّى حَلَفْتُ أَكْثَرَ مِنْ عَدَدِهِنَّ - لأَصَابِعِ يَدَيْهِ - أَلاَّ آتِيَكَ وَلاَ آتِيَ دِينَكَ وَإِنِّي كُنْتُ امْرَأً لاَ أَعْقِلُ شَيْئًا إِلاَّ مَا عَلَّمَنِي اللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَإِنِّي أَسْأَلُكَ بِوَجْهِ اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ بِمَا بَعَثَكَ رَبُّكَ إِلَيْنَا قَالَ " بِالإِسْلاَمِ " . قَالَ قُلْتُ وَمَا آيَاتُ الإِسْلاَمِ قَالَ " أَنْ تَقُولَ أَسْلَمْتُ وَجْهِيَ إِلَى اللَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ وَتَخَلَّيْتُ وَتُقِيمَ الصَّلاَةَ وَتُؤْتِيَ الزَّكَاةَ كُلُّ مُسْلِمٍ عَلَى مُسْلِمٍ مُحَرَّمٌ أَخَوَانِ نَصِيرَانِ لاَ يَقْبَلُ اللَّهُ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ مِنْ مُشْرِكٍ بَعْدَ مَا أَسْلَمَ عَمَلاً أَوْ يُفَارِقَ الْمُشْرِكِينَ إِلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ "
So one version says: “who committed polytheism after having become Muslim until he leaves the polytheists and joins the Muslims” and the first version says “after he becomes Muslim until he leaves the Mushrikeen and joins the Muslim”
Ibn taymiyyah says that his taubah will be accepted after he comes back to Islam.
In Arabic,
#1: أشرك بعد ما أسلم Committed polytheism after becoming Muslim until he leaves polytheists and joins the Muslims.
#2: بعد ما أسلم عملا أو يفارق المشركين إلى المسلمين - After he believes Muslim until he leaves the mushrikeen and joins the Muslims.
All of them go through Bahz ibn Hakeem from his father from his grandfather. The first one looks stronger -- there’s less weakneses in the chain, and the second one has some weird wording. They are exactly in the same place in the discussion of the hadith -- to look at these two hadith and not notice that there is something wrong here -- but something is wrong. The one that is quoted most often is #2 because it is the one most closely related to the question of Hijrah.
Hadith #3: Anyone who associates with a polytheist and lives with him is like him.
Al-Albani says about the narration in Abu Dawud, he says this chain is weak, but the chain is the definition of weak. He then says of another chain but Ishaaq ibn Idrees is a fabricator. But he brings a hadith with a chain that are unknown and then he says that the hadith is sahih in the view of the two chains, but then refers to Hadith #1.
Tahir al-Za’ee the muhaqqiq of the translation says that this is weak. But he says both narrations of #2 are hassan. But one of the two versions of #2 must be shaath.
One of the narrations of An-Nisa’i only has the bottom part. But you’re not doing your job --when you look at the hadith you can look at the chain and that can be OK, but you need to look at all the other ways the hadith has been transmitted before considering it sahih.
In terms of hadith analysis:
- Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are easy to study (unbroken chain, righteousness and proficiency).
- But 4 and 5 are harder (no hidden damaging defects and no contradicting of stronger sources).
If so, you don’t say the hadith is hasan, you say the chain is hasan.
2012-04-15 Class Notes
Those of us who know the sheikh, you probably guessed that Sheikh wasn’t too happy with the conclusion about the soundness of the hadeeth that we discussed last time. Sheikh has analyzed the 57 different chains of narrations of this hadith and he is asking us what would we like to know.
Discussions about the chain and conclusions of Hadeeth #2
Conclusions and findings about hadeeth #2 from the previous class. The version that we hear on all of the books and the lectures, we will refer to as #2a. The text of this goes as follows,
#2a. Allah does not accept any deed from a Mushrik after he accepts Islam until he departs from the Mushrikeen to the Muslims.
In this hadeeth, the name of the sahabi is Muawiyah ibn Haidah and his son’s name is Hakim. All of the narrations go from Hakim through his father. It is story of the incident of the Muawiyah himself. At the end of the story the above text appears. All the narration is pointing This one incident. This hadith is recorded by Al-Nasaaee and al-Rawayaani.
Most of the scholars say that the chain is hasan. As we discussed last time, chain being hasan is different than the text being hasan.
Though, there is one narrator in the chain whose name is Mu’tamir المعتمر and he is slightly weak, most of the people who graded overlooked his weakness. When we look at this chain of this one incident, (sh looked at 57 chain), what we are going to see is that we have 4 different version of same incident (looking at the content it is evident) now the question is which one of this 4 version is the correct version. Most of the people look at the chain they grade is hasan, the chain is good other then the person name Mu’tamir.
The first chain goes from Hakim to Bahz. Bahz is also is known for some weakness which is overlooked on.
The other way that it is narrated, we will refer to it as #2b.
#2b. Allah does not accept any deed from a Mushrik who committed shirk after embracing Islam until he leaves mushrikeen.
This narration is also from Hakim via Bahz. And this line comes in the same line, thus this is pointing to the same incident and thus the 2b gives the difference from 2a.
Footnote: As Ibn Taymiyaah said that it is part of tawbah to leave the mushrikeen. If a Muslim commits shirk then he has to leave the company of the people that made him commit shirk as part of his tawbah.
This hadith is recorded by ibn Maajaah, Musnad Ahmad, Al-nisaa’ee, Ibn al Mubaarak and Rawayaani, The version #2b, the chain is little bit stronger
The third version is referred to as #2c. And it comes from Amr ibn Dinar via Hakim.
#2c. Allah does not accept tawbah from anyone who is committing shirk after his Islam.
Here it doesn’t mention anything about hijrah, leaving the mushrikeen.
This hadith is recorded by Ahmad Nisa’i, Ibn Hibban in his Saheeh, Tabaraani in al-kabeer and al-wasat, Ibn Hibban in his sahih. The chain is 2c is as good as 2b.
#2d. “leaves the shirk” as part of the description of Islam, then later has the same wording as 2c.
Narrated from Ma’mar ibn Rashad the back to Bahz. Recorded in AlJami3 by muhammed ibn ma3mar, mujam al-Kabeer by At-Tabarani. This has some weakness to it, weaker then 2a.
Conclusions about Hadith #2 and its variants
The best you can say about this hadith is mudtarrib مضطرب -- it is narrated in conflicted ways such that it is impossible to tell which is the correct narration. If Sh had to make a choice second to the hadith being mudtarrib, he would choose 2b. Mudtarrib is a type of weak hadith.
Discussion of hadeeth about the two fires as evidence for Hijrah from non-Muslim lands
So the three hadith most often quoted in the context of hijrah are jareer ibn abdillah -- about the two fires -- this hadith is considered to be a mursal hadith by Bukhari and others. Some schools -- e.g. hanafi and maalikis may accept mursal hadith, but if they are going to accept this hadith, they also have to accept the entire story. So they would have to accept the half-blood money.
Context of this hadith can be found in Surah Al Anfaal verse 72 -- if someone does not make hijrah then you have no responsibility for them until they make hijrah. They can’t take the parts of hadith to derive a ruling, as done by Al Albaani and others.
If they only take part (e.g. those who follow Albaani) only accept part of the hadith.
Discussion of hadeeth about intimate relationships as evidence for Hijrah from non-Muslim lands
The third hadith about whoever keeps intimate relations with a disbeliever is just like him. This hadith is weak as it is. The one on the board from what I’ve seen they didn’t bother to identify the fact that they are the same incidents, and declared 2a and 2b simultaneously hassan.
In response to a question about the various narrations of hadith #2, to declare the hadith hasan you have to find out if it contradicts other sources. And if you force him to choose, then he would choose 2b over 2a and 2c. There are some real issues with hadith #2.
Q: Other than al-albaani and al-arnoot has not there be any detailed takhreej on these hadith, they seem pretty vital on the subject of hijrah?
A: Adawi, muqbil bin hadi and others had comments on hadith #1 but not about others.
All signs point to problems with hadith #2 and it was not properly preserved. The mistakes happened earlier on. And this adds to the weakness of this hadeeth.
Surah Nisa verse 97-100 discussing hijrah
The validity of the hadith have been shot. We still have verses from the Quran, Surah Nisa verses 97-100 discussing the topic of migration from non-Muslim lands. Very clear about angels asking them.
Sahih International
Indeed, those whom the angels take [in death] while wronging themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.
Sahih International
Except for the oppressed among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan nor are they directed to a way -
Sahih International
For those it is expected that Allah will pardon them, and Allah is ever Pardoning and Forgiving.
Sahih International
And whoever emigrates for the cause of Allah will find on the earth many [alternative] locations and abundance. And whoever leaves his home as an emigrant to Allah and His Messenger and then death overtakes him - his reward has already become incumbent upon Allah . And Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful.
Similarly Surah Anfal in verse 72 discussing hijrah.
Sahih International
Indeed, those who have believed and emigrated and fought with their wealth and lives in the cause of Allah and those who gave shelter and aided - they are allies of one another. But those who believed and did not emigrate - for you there is no guardianship of them until they emigrate. And if they seek help of you for the religion, then you must help, except against a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty. And Allah is Seeing of what you do.
Then we have the narrations we have about the Prophet (SAWS) allowing people not to make hijrah.
These hadith have a stronger effect perhaps than the qur’anic verses.
Hijrah will continue as long as there is taubah, which is another hadith that we discussed which tells us that Hijrah will continue until the day of judgement.
Opinions of various scholars about Hijrah
There’s a definite breakdown of madhabs -- they have a clear perspective on hijrah. But we also want to look at the point that they are making. We want to hear what Wansharisi wrote. But let us begin with ibn Abdul Barr.
Ibn Abdul-Barr Al-Maaliki d. 463H
He was a great scholar of hadith, and in his discussion on hijrah, he quotes this hadith “I am innocent of those who lives with mushrik..”, but he is Maaliki, so he might be accepting because of his being Maaliki and them accepting mursal hadith. He was the qadhi of Lisbon. He is a great scholar and we should know more about him, which was an exhortation to the students.
His view is that hijrah will continue until the Day of Judgement -- if the Muslim is in daar al kufr or a kaafir becomes a Muslim in dar-ul-harb, then it is obligatory -- “fardan waajiban” -- “absolutely obligatory” -- to make hijrah. He then quotes that hadith: “I am free from every Muslim that lives among the idolaters …” (Hadith #1)
And then he says “How is it possible that a Muslim lives in a country ruled by kufr, and his word “la ilaha illAllah” will be the degraded one.” The toughest madhab without question is the Maaliki madhab. Imam Maalik’s view started everything.
Al-Shiraazi Al-Shafi’i d. 476H - Shafiee opinion about Hijrah
One of the most important works in Shafiee madhab, al-muhathib المهذب and he gives us the shafii view. He said “If someone accepts Islam in dar ul harb, and he is not able to openly show his deen and he has ability to make hijrah, then hijrah becomes obligatory upon him.” And then he quotes the 4:97 verse from the Quran and then he quotes the hadith “I am innocent of any muslim with mushrik”
Although he is quoting the same hadith but his understanding it very differently from the Maalikis -- if someone is not able to practise his deen then he has to make hijrah.
If you are familiar with Al-Nawawi’s Al-Majmoo’ المجموع in 20 volumes and it is a commentary on al-muhatthib. But then he says “it is mustahabb for the one with the ability to make the migration. Based on the verse about Awliyaa
Sahih International
O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.
And he says that if he lives in Daar ul shirk, he increases their number. He cannot be safe from trying to incline towards them and be misled to shirk. And he can never be safe since they might try to attack him. And the owner of his dwelling might come and try to kidnap his children.
If you can not establish your deen, you have to make hijrah. But if you can practise your deen, it is better to make hijrah.
Al-Sarakhsi Al-Hanafi d 483 Hijri - Hanafi opinion about Hijrah
In the textbook for the course, you won’t find a hanafi opinion there. Sh Jamaal went to the standard books of hanafi fiqh, al-sarakhsi, al-kisa’i, al-kinani. Sh had a very difficult time trying to find where the hanafi opinion lies. Finally he found the Hanafi view in Sarakhsi who died in 483H, in probably one of the most important works. An obligation before the conquest of Makkah, then abrogated by the Prophet (SAWS)’s hadith about no hijrah after fath.
Sarakshi quotes the hadith of jarir (“I am free of every Muslim …”) (Hadith #1) but he interprets it to mean the Muslim who is fighting under the banner of the Mushriks. On another occasion, he also quotes the same hadith that it is disliked for a man of having relations with his wife for fear of his children being kept there and not being allowed to leave. But trading, business etc doesn’t seem to have any problem with that, except that they are not allowed to sell things that can be used for military purposes.
So you don’t get a feeling of prohibition of living in daar ul harb from his book.
Al Kisaani d 587 H and Al-Marjinaani d 593 H - Hanafis.
In Al-Kisaani’s famous book, he doesn’t have any qualms about Muslims living in daar al-harb, nor al hidaayah by al-marginaani.
Hanafis seems to be like the other end of Maliki views.
Homework: Read the part about Wansharishi from the textbook, you cannot miss it. This is a very lengthy discussion.
We still have to discuss some more important opinions before we start with Wansharishi.
2012-04-22 Class Notes
Hanafi view on Hijrah from Daar ul Harb to Daar ul Islam
Sheikh has been facing very difficult time in the hanafi view and to narrow down their view. There is a book which is encyclopedia of fiqh where you can look up the topic where it gives you basic concept of it, and there is going to be footnote in which they state the main reference in each madhab where they got their reference from, even in this book there is reference of shafi, maliki and hanbali but there is not reference to get hanafi view. Sheikh finally was able to gather something about hanafi view.
Al Jassas d 370 H - Hanafi View
From his tafseer: Ayaat al Al-Ahkaam, there is a discussion on the topic. He quotes from Hassan ibn Salih or Hassan Al-Basri -- the idea that living amongst the kuffar is an action of ridda goes against book and ijma. With respect to book
“Those who believe ….”
However throughout his discussion he is referring to those who converted to Islam in Dar-ul Harb, and before he had a chance to move to Darul Islam.
Hanafis in general believe that obligation to perform hijrah was abrogated by his statement la hijrata baad al fath they say after that hijrah is no longer obligatory. Most Hanafi scholars will say it is not obligatory. Some Hanafi scholars will say it is mustahab. (Edit: Looks like this view was about Hijrah in general.)
Al-Mulla al-Qadi al-Hirawi said that: the separation due to jihaad or due to good intention or due to bidaa or due to seeking knowledge, this action will remain and it is not abrogated.
But the confusion about the statements of Hanafi view was finally resolved by a later Hanafi scholar (Ibn Mujain?) -- it seems that the one who converts to Islam in Dar Al Harb, it becomes incumbent for him to make hijrah to daar al-Islam.
Ibn Rushd d 520 Hijri - Maliki View who lived in Andalus
In general, Malikis have a very strict view of Maliki, however ibn Rushd gives the same view as the Hanafis.But then he shows his Maliki roots and says that he dislikes even the entry of Muslims from dar al islam to dar al harb to the extent that his imaamah (to lead prayer) and his witness is not accepted. He was a Maliki who lived in Andalus. He argues that it is the consensus of the people of knowledge (ijmaa ahl al ilm) for muslims to migrate from daar al harb, and he says that entry into it is haraam and is unacceptable. He claims the Ijmaa of ahl-al-ilm and ijmaa of Muslims on this. It seems that Hanafi are willing to accept that view as well.
Ibn Al-Arabi from Al-Andalus is also Maliki scholar
In the last quarter we went over all the different types of hijrah that are mentioned by him. In his tafsir (Ayat al Ahkam). He does not have the same kind of strong words as Ibn Rushd, but he lists of all the different type of hijrah. In that book he does not give any conclusion on this.
Ibn Qudaamah d 620 H - Hanbali scholar
All Hanbali scholars around the same time -- Muwaffiq ul-deen ibn Qudaamah probably the most important. Wrote a book called Al-Mughni. One of the best books of fiqh ever written. Not truly Madhab restricted. He does a good job of presenting other views aside from the Maaliki School. One of the other Ibn Qudaamah’s also wrote.
He talks about hijrah and the different categories and rulings wrt hijrah. Divides it into 3 categories:
1. Hijra is obligatory
If someone has the ability to make hijrah, but doesn’t have the ability to practise his deen where he is living. This is the one who the angel will ask in the verse (Surah Nisa 97) about the Earth being spacious. This is enough to show it is obligatory. Practising the deen and establishing the obligatory parts of the deen is obligatory. If the only way you can do that is by making hijrah, then that also becomes obligatory.
2. Hijrah is not obligatory
Not obligatory for people who are ill, elderly, or taking care of women and children etc -- the mustad’afoona in S Nisa v 98-99. If they don’t have the capability to do it, they are not held responsible.
3. Hijrah is recommended but not obligatory
This is the one who has the ability to make hijrah but at the same time he is able to perform his obligatory deeds while in the lands of kufr. Because:
- He may fight in Jihad along with the Muslims.
- Add to the Muslim population.
- Assist and support the Muslims.
- Freeing himself from adding to the population of the non-Muslims.
- Interacting with them will show the evil things that they do.
This was the case of Al-Abbas who not ordered to make hijrah.
This is a pretty standard Hanbali view on the topic. Allows for Muslims to live in Daar al Kufr, but for many reasons it will be better for them to make hijrah. They give different reasons, but they all add together.
Al-Nawawi d 676 H
He is from the Shafi’ee school. He says If it is the case that the Muslim is weak and cannot exercise his religion, then he is forbidden to take residence there. IF he doesn’t have the ability he is excused until he gets that ability.
This quote is from the text, but it is only half of what Al-Nawawi says. This is why it is always important to go back to the original source. This quote was from Rawdat ul taalibeen.
Continuing on … “If the land is conquered before he makes hijrah, then the obligation is dropped. But if he has the ability to practise his deen because he is listened to among his people, then it is not obligatory on him to make hijra. However, it is still recommended. The reason that he states is that, he does not increase their number, nor incline towards them, nor do they plot against him. And it is said that the hijrah is obligatory upon him.
The correct opinion is that it is not obligatory.
Then Imam An-Nawawi quotes Al-Hawi by Al-Mardawi: “If the individual hopes that Islam will spread there because of his being there, then it is better for him to stay there.” And it is also said: “If he is able to separate from the people and practise his religion then it is obligatory upon him to stay there because he makes that place Dar Al Islam, and if he were to leave he would make it Dar Al Harb, then it would be forbidden. then if he is able to fight the non-Muslims then it is obligatory for him to do so.
Ibn Taymiyah d 728 H - Hanbali View
Place in Turkey now called Mardin, and was asked about Mardin and whether it was a land of war or peace? Mardeen was ruled by Muslims, overruled by the Mongols and a non-Islamic rule was established. Ibn Taymiyah said that the rights of Muslim are inviolable and assisting those opposed to Islam is not acceptable. If they can’t practise their faith then it is obligatory on them. Otherwise it is preferable but not obligatory to migrate.
But what about Mardeen? “As to whether a land of war or peace, it is a composite situation. The armed forces aren’t Muslim, nor is it a place of unbelievers.” His comments on Mardeen are something new: Muslims there should be treated according to their rights, and the non-Muslims should be treated according to their rights.
There are many more scholars but now we have to move on and discuss Wanshareesee’s view on Hijrah.
Al Wanshareesee d 914 H - Maliki
From North Africa that is currently Algeria or Morocco. Maliki scholar, wrote a treatise just on the question of hijrah “The most brilliant merchandise and explaining the ruling concerning one whose lands were overtaken and did not emigrate.” He had one of the most extreme opinions and he has had a lot of influence over time, but is one of the most extreme opinions on this topic.
As the Muslims lost more and more of Andalusia, many of them fled to North Africa and came to Morocco. Many found Morocco to be very bad for them. Some of them describe poor treatment. Even though their lands had been taken over, some of them were considering going back to Spain (and Shaikh said that now you can call it Spain).
Questioned posed to Wanshareesee about the plight of Muslims who were evicted or migrated from Andalus
This was the question posed to Al-Wanshareesee that led to the treatise:
A group of people migrated from Andalus and came out from being ruled from non-Muslims and fleeing to the lands of Muslim, but they left money etc behind but they moved to Muslim lands under Muslim guardianship. Many of them became annoyed and claimed that their conditions were very difficult, and they found little kindness, ease or support. Nor any security without being able to act freely. They made different types of vile statements indicating that their hijrah was not for the sake of Allah, but for worldly reasons. They started to praise the lands of disbelief while professing their remorse. “Is this the place we’re supposed to migrate to, or migrate from?”
Have they fallen into sin? Are they committing an act of disobedience? Should they be punished?
Al-Wanshareesee’s Response:
Hijrah is an obligation until the Day of Judgement. Also applies to lands containing falsehood or affliction. Imam Malik said: No-one should reside in a place where something other than the truth is practised. He then quotes from Al-Aaridah: “What if no place contains truth? then one should choose the land that is best.”
And then he quotes Surah Nisa 98-99 only those who don’t have means have an excuse or pardoned. It is different from the weakness that is used in the first part of the ayaah. As for the person who doesn’t make hijrah he wrongs himself. Quotes verses about taking the disbelievers as awliyaa.
He is quoting all verses related to al walaa and al baraa. And he is the first one who is quoting these particular verses for Hijrah. He is trying to emphasize that it is obligatory to migrate from land of kufr and that there is no question about it.
And then he quotes Ibn Rushd whom we listed earlier. And then he quotes the hadith that I am free of .... And he quotes another hadith that whoever has relationships with somebody he would be from them....
And then he says that these two hadith will be clear to anyone who has eyes and???? are listed among the books that list authentic hadith
A fraudulent claim -- one who lacks intellect and religion would make such statements. Since even the prominent high people migrated to Abyssina, including Ja’far ibn Abi Talib. If person concurs with this notion, this person lacks decisive intellect, and he established proof of his vile and insignificant self.
A person should remember that he has nothing in this world except his religion. He says that those people who do not make hijrah or goes back, this is a major sin and subject to severe punishment from Allah, but will not reside permanently in the hellfire.
These are foolish objections except for those who heart has been affected by the devil.
Shaikh Jamaal Zarabozo has problems with his harsh tone.
2012-04-29 Class Notes
We are discussing fatawa or writings related to Hijrah. We want to see the evidences that they use, we want to see the conclusions that they make, and what are some of the additional points that scholars make, and they may be good points and very relevant to where we are.
Al Wanshareesee d 914 H - Maliki
If you think he is harsh, then you have not seen anything yet, it gets more harsher as we progress.
Question posed to Al Wanshareesee for his opinion
A man from the people of Marbiya who is known for regular prayer because he was looking for his brother who was lost in the times of jihaad. He lost his brother and could not find him. And then he eventually made his hijrah. But he was also one who spoke up for Muslim minorities -- and he would advocate for them. Is it allowed for him to reside with him due to the benefit of him staying there because of the benefit he gives to the Muslim, or is there no allowance for any of them to stay there?
Assuming he is permitted to stay there, is he permitted to pray given he is constantly in contact with the Christians.
Al-Wanshareesee’s Reply
Wanshareesee says that … he deserves to be thrown with them into the Hellfire. Quotes verse: “It is I that will be victorious …” He should safeguard his Iman by migrating to the lands of Muslims. Acting as a translator does not change this. This is because residing amongst of the believers is not allowed for even an hour.
He goes on to explain why you can’t practise under the Christians.
And then he quotes the verse from the Quran, when you proclaim the call to prayer, they mock it. He says that this should be proof for you.
He also explains that you cannot fast the month of Ramadan properly, since there is no conveyance without the start and end of the month. How can one deeply engrossed in the religion have any doubt when it is opposed to all of these Islamic fundamentals?
He talks about the elevated status of Muslims. He quotes the hadith that it does not befit a Muslim to debase himself. And then he talks about a person’s reputation. And then about eating lawful and unlawful foods.
Then he talks about fears, fears of living under the Christian leader. And then he quotes .... who mentioned about living under the Christian leader in Andalus. He mentions fear for one’s life, children and family, religion, .... fear of fornification, chastity of your spouse. He mentions concerns about the loss of language and the Islamic culture. Also entails them absorbing wealth through taxes and fines, fear of losing your wealth.
Then he quotes Imam Maalik: “Every Muslim should flee from a land in which the Sunnah is not practised.”
His conclusion is that it is not allowed for him to stay among them.
Discussion of Wanshareesee’s reply
It is not just his conclusion, but some of the points that he made need to be understood. So there are definitely some issues that he mentions that have some weight and we need to consider them.
What percentage of the youth are we losing to this society? Would this be true in this society versus a Muslim society?
According to shaikh you could quantify it, take example of Somalia, how many of the local Somalis have fallen victim to the Christian evangelists in Somalia, versus the number of Somalia youth in the west who are lost.
What Wansharesee is describing is reality. To this day there is a group of people in this society who are calling for internment of the Muslims in the US, just like what they did to the Japanese during World War II.
Another scholar mentions that it’s not just the individual involved, but also about his children and his family. Perhaps he is able to practise, but what if his children or grandchildren will be swallowed up by kufr.
Wanshareesee mentions the sahaba that migrated to Abysinnia in the earlier response, but he does not mention that they were allowed to stay there. So this by itself is not walaa. However it could lead to walaa.
He is following the Maliki, but that is not the strongest view, the majority view is that if you are able to practice your deen, it is not obligatory for you to migrate, it is not obligatory but it is recommended.
View of contemporary scholars about Hijrah
He accepts all of the hadith that we discussed earlier as hasan, even though we saw that there were weaknesses to it. So this is going to reflect his view.
Al Albaani’s statement about Hijrah:
It is difficult for them to move to a Muslim country where the means are less. The second reason is that they may be ignorant of the ruling. Those du’aat are not fuqaha. Also the tableeghi jamaat confuse the matter.
Then quotes hadith that hijrah will continue until the Day of Judgement. What is important that migrating to the lands of Islam, even if its rulers deviate or fall short of applying to Islamic laws as compared to the ill manners found in the land of disbelief.
The matter is not like that make hasty foolish statements e.g. that about living in Jerusalem under Jewish occupation. Then he brings up a few hadith about how Iman will return to Madinah and that will be in the lands of Shaam (Syria).
It is not the land sanctifies someone, only a person’s deed that sanctifies them. Then quotes the verse about angels, and quotes from Ibn Kathir about the people living in the lands of disbelief.
Then refutes those who say there is no hijrah after fath and then says it’s an ignorant statement. Then quotes Ibn Taymiyyah about the land of disbelief -- it is not a property of the land, but the people who go there and how they behave.
Ibn Taymiyyah continues: Based on this the best land wrt each individual is the land in which he can be the most obedient to Allah and his Messenger. There is no specific land, but it’s related to dutifulness.
Albaani as a result he says that the Palestinians are told to stay in their lands. Also mentions Afghans and the Bosnians. And Muslims have to make hijrah in general.
Ibn Uthaymeen’s opinion about Hijrah
He is a contemporary Hanbali, and he does not have fondness for living in land of kufr. He says that land of shirk is the one in which rites of Islam are not established, such as adhan, etc. The land of Islam is one in which these rites of Islam are established in a general manner.
Traveling to the land of the disbelievers is not permissible unless it meets the following conditions:
1. Individual must have knowledge by which he can repeal false arguments
2. Individual must be practising the religion which will preventing from following vain desires.
3. He must have a need for visiting to this land.
Ibn Uthaymeen says, As for residing permanently in the lands of the disbelievers it is a great danger. I have witnessed this first hand, including apostates. They have turned to mocking the religion. Residing in the lands of disbelief can only be done in two cases:
1. His religion must be secure. This will keep him from deviating and diverting. He must avoid getting too close to them.
2. Can openly practise his religion -- is not preventing from jumu’ah prayer. Not prevented from fasting, hajj, zakaat etc.
Therefore their stay can fall into a few cases:
1. Stays there to do da’wah to people and it is a form of Jihad and is a collective responsibility
2. Goes there to study the people and their ways so he can explain the issue.
3. As a requirement of the Muslim country to administer its relation (i.e. diplomats).
4. For permissible reasons, e.g. Business/Medical treatment.
5. He resides there for the purpose of studying similar to residing for a specific need. But for students, this is dangerous, students must also: Be at an advanced level of intellectual maturity. Must have strong religious belief. And must not be able to get that knowledge in the Muslim world.
6. He resides there for staying there and this is more dangerous than the last 5.
He lives in that country being at ease there, despite the great danger that is there.
2012-05-06 Class Notes
Muqbil ibn Hadi’s opinion
Read from Muqbil bin Hadi al-wadi from Yemen. He has the most practical suggestions, sheikh likes this about him. He does bring up a number of good points. One of the first question he addresses, migration from land of disbelief to land of belief. To travel to one of the mountain areas and live there and reside to protect the family. Quoting the hadeeth, “every child is born on fitrah...”. Migrating to the land of the Muslims is very burdensome. Perhaps you arrive at a muslim country and they think of you as a spy and return you back. Corruption is found in every country, whether small or large. Therefore I say, if he’s unable to make hijrah, no sin about it. If he’s able to, I advise him to leave his children and wife behind and to see if he’s able to reside and is suitable. And then he concludes, Allah does not burden a soul on more than it can bear. He was asked about the hadeeth, about polytheist becoming a muslim and his deeds not being accepted after he embraces Islam.
Not all of the companions would make hijrah, for example the story of Amr’ ibn ‘Abasa. An individual may migrate and see evil things transpire -- corruption, enmity between Muslims, etc and he may actually think that this is Islam when this is not what Islam is.
The idea that when someone becomes muslim, in darul-kufr, then it becomes obligatory on him to make hijrah (that we find in some books). What do you think about this nowadays? This actually might be one of the worst things for his Islam. When sheikh first became Muslim, there was one of the directors of King AbdulAziz university, he was going through the country and was taking students to Makkah for his university. He talked to the sheikh, and said, “I don’t think it’s a good idea for you to go, it’s going to be a culture shock”. SHeikh knows of many people who after they became muslim, were gung-ho about making hijrah and made hijrah, and they suffer and their Islam does suffer. If you haven’t grown in your Islam first, it could be very difficult. You might be better off, growing in your Imaan first than making hijrah. This is a very sad fact, goes against all what our ulema have spoken in the past. So Muqbil bin Haadi is one of the few, a contemporary who recently passed away.
He is one of the few who is honest and frank about the situation. Received question: “Should one migrate to the Haramain? Will they be accepted?” Some people would accept him, others would not, he might be deported. Even in Yemen, it’s 3 months, then 20 riyals for every day to stay there. Therefore, I ask Allah to grant a land for Muslims to make hijrah to.
He says Hijrah can be from a land of disbelief to the land of Islam or the land of fear to the land of security. Like the migration to abyssinia, he gives that example. Then he goes on to quote that the hadith that are usually quoted are weak ahadith. And says both ahadith are weak and cannot be used as evidence but we still have the verse in the quran about those who do not migrate.
He was then asked about migrating to a land of disbelief. In this question, the brother included all of the evidences. After mentioning that those hadith that are weak, he says that “I advise those who go to the lands of disbelief to make the intention to call to the path of Allah SWT. He is also of the view that if any time someone makes hijrah, he can not return to the land he made hijrah from.”
(Note: He holds a minority view that you can’t return to the land you previously occupied).
He makes a point, if you’re going from algeria to australia, you should not have your intention that this is a kind of hijrah. Then if things change in algeria, then you’re not allowed to move back to algeria (this was his opinion). Since he generalizes that rule about muhajireen not coming back to Makkah for every case.
If someone goes from lands of Islam to lands of Kufr this should not be called hijrah, since it means leaving something behind. Hijrah means to flee a land of disbelief to a land of Islam -- it does not reply to what the brother is referring to. Therefore he should make his intention to call to Allah.
There are also some conditions on the person:
- Must not ally himself with nor support the enemies of Islam.
- He must hold fast to Islam.
- He should not belittle Islam while he is in those countries.
He also believes that visas are an artificial process. But Sheikh things this is impractical. Even the hijrah to Madinah, they were asking the women to make sure they were coming for the right reasons.
Also, he should be representative of Islam, and if the person behaves badly and in a way inconsistent with Islam, he may give Islam a bad reputation. So if Muslims are going to move to non-Muslims lands, they have a burden of da’wah because people are going to look to them as representatives of Islam. So if a person behaves poorly as a migrating Muslim, he might be harming Islam and creating a greater harm in the community.
When a Muslim is entrusted with an item or with a position, you frequently see destruction and deceit. Insaaf and giving people of their proper due this is a characteristic of the scholars of the past.
He then mentions the case of Indonesia where Muslims went there and set a good example. He goes on to say that many of the Muslims migrated there for economic reasons, and so sinning, or even denying Islam. He then mentions that many orientalists say that if Muslims lived up to the teachings of Islam, they would embrace Islam.
He then mentions Ibn Qudamah’s three categories of people with respect to Hijra in Al Mugni. 1. One who is unable to make hijrah, he is excused. 2. If one can express his Islam openly, then he is recommended to make hijrah but it is not obligatory for him to make hijrah. 3. One who cannot practice his Islam and is able to make hijrah, then it is obligatory for him to make hijrah.
He then quotes a hadith that states that seeing is different than hearing. He came and visited here and what he saw, ...... he said that whoever can travel to Islamic country despite the conditions over there, he should do so, because of the lack of morality here.
While I was on the plane from one city to another, we found such scenes on the television that I wished for death. Sometimes you see things that make one realize how desensitized we have become. He had travelled from Yemen.
Later he was asked about it, he said that he was not speaking about hijrah. Here he was talking about moving to a place for dawah but don’t call it hijrah, meaning, moving from a muslim place to a non-muslim place, he doesn’t consider that hijrah. So if you’re moving in this case, it’d be for the sake of dawah or some other reason, etc.
There are other scholars mentioned in the book, but what we have discussed so far is sufficient.
What an individual might do and force himself to do is different than what he expects from others. You might set a high bar for yourself, but it is a form of extremism to force others (such as your family) to meet it, then you may harm their deen. Even a given individual, sometimes an individual may not achieve the standard and may end up hurting their deen any more.
Example: moving to the mountains might work for you, but if it harms your family, then you shouldn’t do it.
THere are different types of hijrah, for example hijrah from the land of people of bida’ to land of sunnah, in this class we focused on hijrah from non muslim land to muslim land.
When was the last time that we had one true Muslim khalifah ruling over the entire Muslim land. It was during the rule of the Umayyid, there was one khalifah. During the Abbasid time, the Umayyad established their own rule in Andalus. IN reality there were many military states, but the borders were open. So they would mention a specific khalifa during the khutbah. So as you moved from one place to another, you would have mention of Abbasid khalifa or Umayyad khalifa, depending upon your travel direction.
Nationalism or asbiyyah is a characteristic of jahiliyyah. And this is not expected in shariah, but the control of land or state could be restricted to a specific land. So there will be borders. Criteria for accepting citizens is going to be different. But they will not be able to accept all migrations to the land. Even during the time of the prophet, not all Muslims migrated to Madinah, some still remained in Abyssinia.
So his final fatwa after he came and visited the US, he did not like it here and he recommended that we should migrate to Muslim land.
Footnote: There were some scholars who visited the US, said that it was daar ul islam, since the time they landed, the moved from one mosque to another, so all they saw was Muslims. They said that next time I visit, I want to make sure I see the US, otherwise I would not be able to answer questions about the US when I return back home.
2012-05-13 Class Notes
Two topics have recurred: ithhaar uddin and daar ul harb.
Ithhar uddin
Hard to find the definition anywhere, even in big compendia. Roughly translated it means outward expression of religion. There is a qa’eda (principle of shariah) that the only way to perform or achieve an obligatory act is by doing something specific, then that specific thing also becomes obligatory.
In the verse that says “thaalimi anfusahum” it mentions that those who don’t make hijrah. So that if you are not able to fulfill your religious obligations, then you must make hijrah.
The earliest definition on this subject was As-Shafi’is view: if you do not fear fitnah or being put to trial with respect to your deen then it is not obligatory for you to make hijrah. He quotes the example of Al-’Abbas ibn Abd Muttalib who stayed in Makkah and did not make Hijrah to Medina. (Sh has some concerns about this narration since it goes through Ibn Lahiya and it is mu’an’an).
But the question is: Did Al-’Abbas openly practised Islam in Makkah? When you read seerah it is tilting towards the opinion that he was hiding his Islam. Even if this is authentic this might be exceptional case.
What about those who moved to Abyssinia? Clearly they did -- no obstacles to performing their deen.
Ibn Taymiyah was of the view that hijrah was not required when someone’s iman is not subject to fitnah.
Al-Tabari in his tafseer for this verse means being prevented from believe in Allah and the messenger.
Al-Mawardi one more shafi’i scholar : someone who is able to distinguish himself by his religion and he is not going to be harmed by the fact that he is living amongst non Muslims and he has the ability to make da’wah to Islam.
Ibn Uthaymeen was specifically asked what is Ithhaar uddin. He replied: if you are in a land of kufr and you are able to pray, and give zakaat, and establish regular and jumu’ah prayer that person is able to do ithhar uddin, but we do not like that the individual stay in Daar al kufr.
Islamweb: Is it enough for the women to wear hijaab, men to grow beards, we can slaughter on the day of eid -- is that sufficient for us to make ithhaar uddin? Answer: Individual is able to establish the acts of worship without any harm coming to them or experiencing any fitnah.
Saaleh Aal-Shaykh: Manifest it before people and show that he bear witness to the testimony of truth and informing others, whether by words or actions. A Muslim should be able to openly practise religion with pride and self esteem.
A long list of scholars (especially those from An-Najd) such as Ibn Ateeq: Ithhar ud-deen means to be openly express your enmity to the enemies of Allah and to be able to clearly say that what they are following is kufr and shirk. This is what ithhaar ud-din means in reality. Some people think it means performing the salaat while one dislikes the kufr. That is not according to the correct opinion amongst the people of knowledge. Some people who think it is enough to announce shahaadah and pray. He has made the greatest of errors.
Surah Yunus verse 104-105:
Sahih International
Say, [O Muhammad], "O people, if you are in doubt as to my religion - then I do not worship those which you worship besides Allah ; but I worship Allah , who causes your death. And I have been commanded to be of the believers10:105
Sahih International
And [commanded], 'Direct your face toward the religion, inclining to truth, and never be of those who associate others with Allah ;
He says that the Christians and Jews don’t care if you pray in the land. If this were not the case, then there would not have been any reason for the Prophet (SAWS) to make hijra.
Ar-Ramli a famous scholar who was asked about Muslims living in a part of Spain living in Aragon. He said: “They are under the authority of a Christian ruler who collects an agricultural tax, but other than that, they are allowed to practise their faith -- including prayers, hudood etc and the Christians don’t harm them and they make du’a for the leader of the Muslims and given that they fear that they are disobeying Allah and should make hijrah, or are they making ithhaar ud-deen.”
He replied: It is not obligatory for them to make hijrah. He then gives the example of Uthmaan on the day of Makkah on the basis that he was making ithhaar ud-deen.
Can we do ithhaar particularly of controversial topics in the US? It’s possible to do, but hard. But given that is true, where else could we go, especially in this day and age?
2012-05-20 Class Notes
Q: If a person is living in a land where he can practice Ithaar ud-deen, but is not able to practice all of the acts of his deen, ...
A: Obviously some aspects of hijrah are related to an individual. If a person is free to practice his religion, but he is not comfortable to practice it in publicly, but if he were to migrate to a Muslim land, and because of the environment, he is able to practice his obligatory acts, then it is mandatory for him to make hijrah. We will discuss some of these points in the summary.
Last week we discussed the concept of Ithhaar uddin.
Concept of Ad-Darr الدار (Abode)
There is a description at theoretical level and at a practical level. Some modern scholars that this division of daar al kufr and daar ul islam is not in the Quran and Sunnah, and it is a later definition. Others say that if you apply the definitions to the modern world, all modern Muslim lands would be land/abode of kufr and these are well known sunni contemporary scholars.
Is the division of lands or daar into daar al kufr and daar ul islam, a part of our Shariah?
If we cannot trace these terms to the time of the Prophet (SAWS) to the time of the Prophet (SAWS) does that mean they don’t exist? In general, the terminology comes about after the concept has existed for some time.
When you go into the Qur’an and Sunnah, you can provide some evidence and they may be there to some extent in the texts. The word daar is an Arabic word -- which means abode.
Sahih International
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
But with reference to the concept of Daar ul Islam and Daar ul Kufr, it can be found in some hadith. There is a hadith that says that the daar ul islam will be Syria. This hadeeth has some weakness to it.
When the options were given the option of where to go one of them was to move from daarihim to daar al hijra. Umar b Khattab and Khalid b Waleed used these terms in their discussions. Khalid b Waleed one time referred to baldatul kufr (the country of kufr). And similarly also in other texts Ard Al Shirk. e.g about the hadith of a slave who escapes to darr al shirk
Ibn Abbas also made a statement in which he talks about Ahlul harb and Ahlul ‘ahd.
So there are some limited mentions -- but there are signs. However, the idea that there was a land of Islam and the land of kufr was present during the time of Messenger and no one can deny this.
What constitutes Daar ul Harb and Daar ul Islam?
Definitely by the time of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf these terms had become well established. But the scholars differ on what is daar al Islam and what is daar ul harb, and what makes a land go from one to the other. There are two main opinions the first of which has two sub-opinions.
The key question to ask is the following: Who is ruling the land? or Are the Muslims in a state of security and protection?
The vast majority of the scholars (except maybe for some of the Hanafis) say that it is the manifestation and the enactment of the laws of Islam. I.e. Daar al Islam is the land where the law and rule of Islam is dominant and the Daar al Kufr will be the place where the law of Kufr is dominant.
1. Daar al Islam is the land where the law and rule of Islam is dominant
There are two subgroups within this group.
According to Ibn Al-Qayyim Daar al islam is the land where muslims are settled and the laws of Islam are applied therein. If the law of Islam is not applied then this is not Daar al islam even if they are geographically connected.
Abu Yusuf said the lands of Islam are the ones in which the laws of Islam are manifest, even if the Muslims are not in majority.
Are people being ruled by Islam, then it would be Daar al Islam even of the majority are not muslim as long as the Imam or political leader is muslim.
1a. Division according to the status of the leader of the land
They do differ about whether or not it is defined by the political control of the country. This is the view of the majority of the Hanafis and Ibn Hazm. Ibn Hazm says this is because a land is ascribed by those ruling and controlling it. One scholar said that even if there are no muslims there, it is still daar ul islam.
1b. Division according to the status of the population of the land
Many of the contemporary scholars also hold this view -- it’s not about the populace but the leadership. Others say what is important is the actions of its inhabitants and what is observed in the community.
They are trying to open the door to the condition where you lose the land to the Christians but people are still practicing Islam, which was the case in Spain after the fall of Islam.
When does Daar ul Islam become Daar ul Kufr?
In Shafi school, the land of Islam does not become daar ul kufr, simply by losing the land, as long as the outward signs of Islam are there. Some scholars say that as long as outward signs of Islam are dominant, and the custom is also Islam, then it is still daar ul Islam, even if the land was captured by the non Muslims.
Some Shafi’is go even further and say that it is the land that the Muslims are able to openly practise Islam. But this is frequently refuted -- there are no references to Habashah (Abyssinia) being called daar ul Islam.
2. The land of Islam is under the control of Muslims and that the sign of control is that the Muslims live there in a state of peace and security
This opinion is attributed to Abu Hanifah. Some try to explain that what Abu Hanifah meant by that is not a separate opinion, but it being under control of the Muslims.
Daar al Kufr is therefore the opposite of Daar Al Islaam. Just replace the terms in the above page to define the land of kufr from the perspective of Muslims :-)
The different views are closer to each other, there is no big separation between them. If Muslims are ruling the land, then the manifestations of the laws of Islam should be there, otherwise it is a strange land. But many contemporary scholars ask if there are more daars then the two mentioned earlier.
Possibility of more Daars than just the two Daar ul Islam and Daar ul Kufr
There’s a difference between denying daar al kufr and daar al islaam and the question that arises is: “Are those the only possible types of daars that are acceptable/feasible in the shari’ah? Is it possible that there are other kinds of classifications beyond that? There’s nothing in the Qur’an or Sunnah to say that these are the only ways of looking at things.
Footnote: Most scholars used Daar ul Kufr and Daar ul Harb interchangeably. When they defined the land of non Muslims, they used the term Daar ul Harb.
For example Abysinnia -- when some sahabah stayed with the permission of the Prophet (SAWS) but no-one has ever stated that it was Daar al-Islaam. Since the Christian ruler did become Muslim it makes things more confusing, but we’ll put that aside.
Opinion: Once a land is Daar ul Islam it always remains Daar ul Islam
But then suppose there is a land that is daar al Islam that changes its nature. E.g. there is an opinion that it is weak that once something is daar al Islam, it is always daar al Islam -- we cannot accept the fact that it has changed in its nature.
Opinion: Daar ul Islam becomes Daar ul Kufr when Islam is no longer practiced or disbeliever take over the land
But others/the dominant opinion is that the land becomes daar al kufr at the moment when the laws of kufr are manifest/dominant in it or the disbelievers take over the land. This is the opinion of ......
Opinion: Daar Al Islaam does not become daar al kufr by being overtaken by kuffar.
For example, Al-Disouqi uses the term daar al harb and daar al kufr interchangeably.
Opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah about the land of Maradin
Ibn Taymiyah when he was talking about the land of Maradin, which was inhabited by Muslims but overtaken by the Mongols. He was asked whether it was a daar al harb or daar al islaam. He said it has a component of each one. He said the force has to be with the Muslims, nor is it of the status of land of kufr (footnote: he interchangeably uses the term kufr instead of harb) because the inhabitants are Muslims. Instead it is a third category.
Conclusions
Daar al Islaam is the place where Islam is ruling -- but note that just because some of the laws of Islam are not implemented doesn’t mean it’s not a state of Islam. But if the Muslims are ruling and in general the laws of Islam are being implemented and Islam is manifested, then that is the land of Islam.
If the two are fighting with one another then that makes the distinction between them.
There is the possibility that there are other types of lands as well -- think of these as two ends of the spectrum. The Muslim lands in many cases have left ruling by Islam in general. Most of them put in the constitution that the shari’ah is one source of law, but the reality is that the real source of power is not Islam or the Shari’ah. At the same time, the people are Muslim. In some places, e.g. Egypt, Tunisia, Turkey where the manifestation of Islam was restricted.
Obviously hijrah to that kind of country is not necessary. Some modern day scholars when they talk about the Muslim lands nowadays, they say that they are daar al islam in a sense they are de jure and not de facto-- they have have some aspect of daar al islaam.
So considering these countries during peaceful times -- are they closer to daar al Islaam than daar al kufr? Closer to DI -- the outward manifestations are still. But some aspects does not take the out of daar al Islam completely.
Al-Shawkani also introduced a new term -- he called it Daar al Fisq -- the land of corruption.
So when we talk about that Daar al Islaam that you would want to make hijrah to -- it’s just not there. Nobody dreams of moving to daar al fisq.
What about the Western Lands? They are not like crusaders who are fighting Islam no matter what. There are people in this country that are still like that, and there’s no question that if you take this country as a whole, especially after 9/11 the life of a Muslim is not the same as the life of another human being. When Muslims are killed there is not much of an uproar.
Maybe there is not a fight against Islam, but it is true that the blood of a Muslim is not the same as the blood of others.
If daar al kufr has the same implications that you had before and you have the understanding that they are fighting each other as daar al kufr and daar al islaam. Some scholars have tried to work out new identities for these.
What we can see is that there is a continuum between daar al kufr and Islaam. There are also lands called daar ul ahd -- these are the lands where we have some kind of agreement with them. So probably the default case is something like daar ul ahd. In the sense that Muslims are respected (within limits) -- they are giving Muslims their rights and the rights they are giving their citizenry -- in general you get the same rights and this is one of the things that differentiates what’s happening now.
Two distinguishing features:
1. There is not the fighting against Islam in the sense of being muslim.
2. The citizenry is much different from times in the past. This new model of citizenry has changed the relationship and what it means to live in daar al kufr.
In addition there is no real daar al islaam -- the best you can say is that there is daar al fisq. All of these have to be considered.
It is much more severe in Europe. Sometimes due to Muslims themselves. There is a group calling themselves salafis in Germany who expressed enmity to the state. When you have that kind of thing .....
2012-05-27 Class Notes
This is the last class for this quarter. In this last class, Shaikh will try to summarize the topic of hijrah and in particular our situation living in the West and the topic of hijrah to Muslim land.
Proofs for Hijrah
In particular Surah Nisa verses 97 - 100. There is nothing in these verses that restrict hijrah from Makkah to Madinah, but in general for anyone who allows themselves to be in a situation where they are not able to worship Allah swt properly. This is why they are described as people who have wronged themselves. The world is spacious enough that you can migrate to a place where you are allowed to worship Allah swt properly, but if they choose to stay in the land, then their recompense will be hellfire, unless they are not able to perform the hijrah. If person makes the effort and dies on the part, then he will be rewarded for his action.
By staying in the land where you are not able to worship Allah swt properly, you are wronging yourselves. And this is the reason why they are deserving the punishment for hellfire, it might be because of their love for this dunya or their laziness. What put them in a situation where they were not willing to worship Allah (SWT) properly?
Prophet (SAWS) said: hijrah will not be discontinued as long as there is jihad.
And there is obvious relationship between hijrah and jihad.
Hadith: Hijrah will not be discontinued until repentance is not forgiven and sun still rises from the east....
So when the Prophet (SAWS) says: No hijra after the fath, that’s specific to the hijrah from Makkah to Madinah.
We know that hijrah will continue until the sun rises in the west.
And we find the hadith that says hijrah is obligatory are not authentic. This is an important conclusion by itself.
Including the hadith that says, I am not responsible for the individual until he leaves the mushrikeen.
The reason why is because Albaani said they were sahih. It doesn’t downplay the importance of hijrah, just that these hadith are not strong.
Goals of Hijrah
It becomes clear that the ultimate goal of hijrah are two-fold:
1) Strengthening and bonding with the Muslim ummah.
The idea and aspect behind it is the strengthening and well being of the muslim ummah. THis is a political aspect of hijrah.
2) Preserving, protecting, strengthening one’s own imaan and deen.
Scholars mentioned that if you cannot perform your deen in daar ul kufr, then it is obligatory for you to perform hijrah. Every muslim has to realize that he has obligation towards himself, his family, his community, his ummah and his deen as a whole. A muslim cannot just think about himself. If he has a family, he has to think about them, and his community of Muslim around him.
Hadith: A muslim is ........
Every muslim should understand this.
At no point should a person’s place of residence take precedence over the deen. Regardless of where you are living, that country that place should not take precedence over your deen, or your desire to get closer to Allah (SWT).
There’s an idea spreading among American Muslims that “I’m an American, this is my land, this is where I belong.” It doesn’t matter if it is Makkah or America. No land should ever take precedence over the obligations to Allah (SWT).
As Allah swt has told us in the Quran,
Sahih International
Say, [O Muhammad], "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline, and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah does not guide the defiantly disobedient people."
Our place of residence is not the ultimate deciding factor, what matters is our relationship with ALlah swt, how we are able to practice our deen, ithaar ud deen. If we cannot practice our deen, this should cause us to reconsider our place of abode. You have to ask yourself a question, where can I practice my deen in every way I can, in the best way possible. You should try to make your deen a reality.
There is no pure daar ul islam that we can all believe in, that is calling all muslims and asking them to join it and strengthen it. And it’s more than just daar al kufr and daar al islaam. There are places like daar al ahd. Similarly we don’t really have anything that falls into the usual categories of either Daar al Kufr or Daar ul Islam.
We only have non-Ideal Muslim states. It is very confusing and try to determine which is the best situation. And it is likely that the best situation might be different for different people. For some Muslims, the hijrah from land x to land y is the best situation, but for some other muslims it might be harmful.
Living in a non Islamic secular state (Edit Not Europe but US, Australia, Canada...), there are issues involved, there are benefits and problems.
There are benefits of living in the United States is the freedoms that you enjoy. It is because we are still a relatively young nation, we do not have the cultural baggage of other nations. If you convert to Islam, if you build a mosque or visit a mosque, it was not a big issue, especially before 9-11, now it has become more difficult to build a mosque in certain places in the US.
There is freedom for Muslims to practice in such a way that is not possible in their own land, and we are not talking about repressive lands. People who come from lands with a lot of bida’a, they can easily avoid them here.
However if you live in the US, you are contributing to the well being of the nation. If unemployment gets worst, you are hoping that the economy improves, and you become attached to the well being of the nation.
Your intellectual and economic abilities add to the strength of the country you’re living in. E.g. by living in these countries, you are accepting non-Islamic laws.
The Prophet (SAWS) said: Islam should be dominant and not dominated.
Although there are lots of freedoms, you do compromise a lot. Some of us might not be willing to go out dressed like a Muslim, some sisters leave their hijaab, or being hesitant to wearing nikaab, willing to shake hands with the opposite sex, willing to participate in student loans, etc. We have to be aware of it.
Some of us are willing to compromise our aqeedah. Some of our scholars are questioning how we should deal with non believers, walaa and baraa. Their holidays are your holidays. We are celebrating their holidays. We are looking forward to the days off during Thanksgiving and Christmas, we are not celebrating them, but we are looking forward to them. And if Eid comes on a weekday, we are willing to go to work and postpone our celebrations.
And most importantly we have to be aware of the impact on the next generation. The generation that are in their twenties, who are children of the muslim immigrants, they seem to understand their deen very well, and they are sincere in their deen, and it is a blessing to see them attached to the deen. At the same time, we see many children who are not attached to the masjid, dont know much about Islam, and they are lost. This group is the large portion of the youth. ANd we have to wonder what would happen to the generation after this.
You can’t overcome the effect of society as a whole. Furthermore, there is no obstacle, indeed there is incentive for them to leave Islam. This is a big danger in a non-Muslim land. You’ll also hear lots of attacks and doubts about Islam. A lot of comedians make fun of Islam, in fact they make fun of everything.
Allah swt says in the Quran, Surah Nisa verse 140
Sahih International
And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah [recited], they are denied [by them] and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed, you would then be like them. Indeed Allah will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together -
We talked about freedom, and this is also true for all kind of deviant approaches to Muslim ideas. We dont have the ulema to protect us, we don't have influence in the media to protect us. We see more and more deviant ideas being proposed. And we see many of these interesting ideas in Muslim mosques.
You don’t have any guarantee that the non Muslims will not break their pact. We don’t know what event would trigger harsh treatment of the Muslims. It won't take much because of the environment that exists nowadays in the media and various hate groups.
But remember that Muslim countries aren’t perfect either -- remember back to Muqbil bin Hadi -- unfortunately our Muslim countries are also bad. E.g. the money is used explicitly against Muslims in many countries in ways that would not be possible in the USA. E.g. putting people in prison because of a beard, or hijaab or fajr happens in Muslims countries. You’re not really going to support a true Muslim situation there. In fact, you might even be compelled to fight against other Muslims (as has happened on numerous occasions) and you might even have difficulty moving to Muslim lands (especially those that are more conservative). Those that are outwardly most Islamic are the ones that won’t accept you. So at some point you’ll have to leave. In most of the Muslim countries you have the ambience of Islam. You have mosques, athaan, Islamic holidays etc. You have that reminder of your purpose.
Ultimately, though, there is no land that is really going to help you that much. And if you know that the environment is not going to help you then you have to realize that you have to do your best.
The requirements for you as an individual to struggle to protect your deen is going to be harder than any other time. You can usually rely on the environment to protect you, but if that isn’t the case, you have to take the steps to strengthen your iman to make yourself practise even in the face of obstacles. We are living in a time when we have to take the effort to practice Islam.
So the ruling for hijrah depends on an individual’s exact situation. He has to ask himself, where he is and where he could be, and try to analyse what would be best for his obligation towards his deen.
In some case, it might be best for an individual to stay where he is. In fact it might be haraam for him to make hijrah, because it might harm his deen. Somebody else might be in the land where he is due to comforts and pleasures of the land, he is allowing his deen to slip, so he has to make hijrah, but he has to consider exactly where he should make hijrah.
So these days, hijrah could be obligatory, recommended, or haraam.
We have extremes and we have to avoid them. So the opinion that there is no such thing as hijrah and that all people in the West have to obligatorily make hijrah. Both of these extremes are wrong.
Hijrah should be made in order to help you protect your deen. Every individual should be honest with himself and with Allah swt. And may Allah swt guide us to make the best decision. You have to turn to Allah swt and sincerely seek guidance. You want what is best to bringing you closer to Allah swt.
Bilal Phillips has a different type of hijrah that he speaks of. He says that all muslims or a good number of muslims in one geographical region should move to one location.
And we have to remember that things can change, you have to revisit your decision periodically. There was a time when people referred to Boulder as daar al ....... At that time, Boulder was very liberal but it changed, rich conservative people moved there, it changed from liberal to a very conservative, non-accepting place. And the mosque also changed. A lot of students who had come to Boulder left. So you should always be aware of your environment and how it is impacting your deen.
If you have parents that need you to take care of you, that is going to be a very strong factor in your decision. The equation for making hijrah to a land where you feel that you won't be able to practice your deen properly, then the harm to your deen might take properly might take precedence over other factors.
You also have to be a able to support yourself. You should not migrate to a land where you have to starve or beg or be dependent upon others. These factors should be considered too.
Teenage want to fit in and they don’t want to look strange. So it is a very strong pressure on our Muslim youth. It might be temporary, or it might be permanent.
We might continue this in the next quarter where we discuss hijrah to non muslim lands and topics such as citizenship, political participation, and other factors related to living in the West.