The State is forbidden to belong to any organisation which is based on anything other than Islam or which applies non- Islamic rules. This includes international organisations like the United Nations, the International Court of Justice, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and regional organisations like the Arab League.

The subject which the international and regional organisations are established upon has been prohibited by the Shari’ah.

The United Nations is established upon the basis of the Capitalist system, which is a system of Kufr, above and beyond which it is a tool in the hands of the large nations, particularly America, which exploits it for the sake of imposing its influence over the smaller nations, which the current states in the Islamic World are a part of.

The International Court of Justice judges with a system of Kufr, and going to it for a judgement is to take a judgement from other than what Allah (swt) has revealed.

The International Monetary Fund is established upon giving loans of hard currency with interest, and on a basis of exchange that is forbidden according to the Shari’ah, and so it does not give hard currency in exchange for the local currency on the spot, but rather it gives hard currency to the State which is in need of hard currency, in exchange that after a period of time it repays it the equivalent from its own currency with additional interest which is specified. This kind of currency exchange is forbidden since it is a type of currency exchange that has been prohibited, because currency exchange either has to be carried out on the spot without any delay, since if there is a delay it is forbidden as the narration has mentioned. And in the same manner it also includes interest which is also forbidden.

The World Bank is established upon utilising interest, like any other bank.

The Arab League is established upon the basis of the Capitalist system, and it explicitly mentions in its constitution that it is to protect the independence of the Arab states, in other words, the protection of the separation and division of the Islamic lands, which is prohibited.

Similar to the Arab League is the Organisation of Islamic Conference and its like.

For these reasons, it is forbidden for the Islamic State to belong to any of these organisations.

This is the draft constitution, or the necessary evidences for it, and we have clarified the evidences for the rules which are part of the Articles of the constitution, and explained what was necessary to be explained, and it is clear that this constitution is an Islamic constitution, in other words, it is composed of Shari’ah rules deduced from Shari’ah evidences, in other words, from the Book (Quran), the Sunnah, the Ijma’ of the companions, and Qiyas. This is why it is a duty upon the Muslims to act according to it.

All military treaties and pacts (with other States) are completely prohibited, along with anything of their type, or connected to them such as political treaties and agreements covering the leasing of military bases and airfields. It is permitted to conclude good neighbour relations, economic, commercial, financial, cultural and armistice treaties.

The definition of: “treaties” is that they are agreements that States conclude between themselves with the goal of organising a specific relationship and defining the rules and conditions which that relationship submits to. The Islamic jurists used the term: “Al- Muwada’at”, and the evidence for the permissibility of concluding treaties between the Muslims and disbelievers are the words of Allah (swt):

“Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty.” (TMQ 4:90) and: “And if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family.” (TMQ 4:92), and: “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.” (TMQ 8:72), and the word Al-Mithaq used in the verses means treaties. The Messenger (pbuh) concluded several treaties with the disbelievers, however it is a precondition for the validity of the contracting of the treaty that the subject that the contract was upon was something that the Shari’ah had permitted. There are various types of treaties, such as non-political and political treaties.

Non-political treaties are the agreements which specify the manner of the relationship between the two States with respect to a particular issue between the two of them such as financial, economic, commercial, industrial and cultural relationships, and anything else similar, and so these are considered in the light of the Shari’ah according to their subject, and the Shari’ah rules connected to that subject are applicable. That is why economic treaties are permitted, since the rules regarding renting and international commerce are applicable, and commercial treaties are also permitted, since the rules regarding selling and international commerce are applicable, and financial treaties are permitted, since the rules of exchange apply, and cultural treaties are permitted since the rules regarding education and teaching apply from the angle of scientific material, and from the angle of definite and speculative results which are produced by learning and teaching them.

There are three categories of political treaties:

Firstly, those that are permitted, which are those that do not affect the nature of the State, and do not decrease its domestic and international authority, and do not give the disbeliever any authority over it, such as peace and armistice treaties - the Messenger (pbuh) concluded an armistice treaty with the Quraysh in the armistice treaty of Hudaybiyah.

Also permitted are treaties to not commit acts of aggression against one another; the Messenger (pbuh) concluded treaties to not commit acts of aggression with Bani Damra and Bani Mudlij. In the same manner, treaties upon friendly relations are permitted since the Messenger (pbuh) concluded a treaty upon friendly relations with the Jews and so on.

The second category of treaties are those which are necessary for the State if it is in a position of difficulty and constraint, and these are permitted, such as a treaty to take Jizya from a State while it remains ruled by a Kufr system, or a treaty with a State giving it money in exchange for its neutrality with us.

The third category are those treaties which are prohibited, such as treaties of protection, or permanent neutrality and treaties which delineate permanent borders, and those for leasing airfields and military bases and anything else similar. These treaties are not permitted, because the subject of the treaty is not permitted, since protection gives the disbeliever authority over the Muslims, and makes the security of the Muslims the security of disbelief (Kufr). Permanent neutrality is not permitted, because it reduces the authority of the Muslims. Delineating permanent borders is not permitted because it means not carrying the call to Islam and the suspension of the rules of Jihad. Leasing airfields is not permitted because it gives the disbelievers authority over Dar Al-Islam and the same applies to military bases.

As for military treaties, they are forbidden due to the words of the Prophet :

» لا تَسْتَضِيئُوا بِنَارِ الْمُشْرِكِيَ «

“Do not take light from the fire of the polytheists (the Mushrikin)” (reported by Ahmad and Al-Nasa’i), and the fire of a people is a metaphor for their structure in war. It is also forbidden due to his words :

 » فَلَنْ أَسْتَعِيَ بُِِشْرِكٍ «

“I do not seek help from a polytheist (Mushrik)” (reported by Muslim from Aisha(ra)). And from Aisha(ra) in Abu Dawud and Ibn Maja:

» إِنَّا لا نَسْتَعِيُ بُِِشْرِكٍ «

“We do not want any help from a polytheist (Mushrik)” and his words:

 » لاَ نَسْتَعِيُ بِالْكُفَّارِ عَلَى الْمُشْرِكِيَ «

“We do not seek help from the disbelievers against the polytheists” (reported by Ibn Abi Shayba from Sa’id b. Al- Mundhir).

With regard to what is reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud from Dhi Makhmar who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

 » تُصَالحُِونَ ال رومَ صُلْحًا آمِنًا، وَتَغْزُونَ أَنْتُمْ وَهُمْ عَدُوًّا مِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ «

“You will make a secure peace with the Byzantines, then you and they will fight an enemy behind them.” – his words:

 » تَغْزُونَ أَنْتُمْ وَهُمْ عَدُوًّا مِنْ وَرَائِهِمْ «

“and you and they will fight an enemy behind them” is taken to mean individual Romans, and not their State, and that is because he said:

 » تُصَالحُِونَ ال رومَ صُلْحًا آمِنًا، وَتَغْزُونَ «

“You will make a secure peace with the Byzantines, and you will fight” and the treaty between the Muslims and disbelievers is only when they accept the Jizya and to enter under the rule of the Muslims, since Islam ordered the Muslims to give the disbelievers they fight the choice between three: Islam, Jizya or war. If the treaty occurred and they were disbelievers, this could not happen except in the situation they were paying Jizya and their falling under the Islamic flag. So, therefore, his words: “you will make a treaty” is an indication that they were under the flag of the Muslims, and so they would be individuals at that time, and this is supported by what happened with the Romans. The Muslims fought and defeated them, and occupied their lands, and the Romans fought with the Muslims as individuals, but the Roman State did not fight alongside the Islamic State against another enemy behind them. This confirms that what is meant by the narration is individual Romans, and not as a State, and it is obligatory to interpret it in this way in order to reconcile and use all of the evidences – as is well known in Usul Al-Fiqh, using the two evidences is better than voiding one of them, and there is no recourse to weighing the evidences unless reconciling them is not possible. Accordingly it is clear that there is no evidence which permits seeking the help of the polytheists as a State; rather the evidences are explicit against that without any restriction.

These are the evidences for this Article.

The relationship of the State with other states present in the world is built upon four considerations. These are:

1. The existing states in the Islamic world are considered to be part of one land and therefore they are not included within the sphere of foreign affairs. Relations with these countries are not considered to be in the realm of foreign policy and it is obligatory to work to unify all these countries into one state.

2. States who have economic, commercial, good neighbouring or cultural treaties with our State are to be treated according to the terms of the treaties. If a treaty states so, their subjects have the right to enter the State with an identity card without the need for a passport provided our subjects are treated in a like manner. The economic and commercial relations with such states must be restricted to specific items and characteristics which are deemed necessary and which at the same time do not lead to the strengthening of these states.

3. States with whom we do not have treaties, and the actual imperialist states, such as Britain, America and France, and those states that have designs on the State, such as Russia, are legally considered to be belligerent states. All precautions must be taken towards them and it would be wrong to establish diplomatic relations with them. Their subjects may enter the Islamic State, but only with a passport and a visa specific to every individual and for every visit, unless they become practically belligerent.

4. States that are actually belligerent states, such as Israel for example, a state of war must be taken as the basis for all dealings with them. They must be dealt with as if a real war existed between us – irrespective of whether an armistice exists between us or not - and all their subjects are prevented from entering the State.

This Article was derived from the rules regarding Dar Al-Islam and Dar Al-Kufr, and from the rules regarding the one with a covenant and the one who has amnesty.

The first clause is related to the Islamic lands which used to be ruled by Islam, such as India for example, or where the majority are Muslims such as in Lebanon. All of the Islamic lands since the destruction of the Khilafah in 1342 Hijri until it is re-established anew with the Permission of Allah (swt), are Dar Al-Kufr, because some of them are ruled by other than Islam and their external security is not the security of Islam. Others are secured by Muslims but are ruled by other than Islam. All of these are considered to be Dar Al-Kufr and since they used to be Dar Al-Islam it is imperative to work to revert them back to being Dar Al-Islam, but as long as they are ruled by other than Islam, or their security is other than the security of Islam, then they remain as Dar Al-Kufr, and so the rules of Dar Al-Kufr apply to them. It being Dar Al-Kufr does not mean that all its inhabitants are disbelievers, and it does not mean that in Dar Al-Islam that all its inhabitants are Muslims. Rather, the meaning of Dar (abode) here is a Shari’ah term: “Shar’i reality”, in other words, it’s the Shari’ah which gives it this meaning, like the terms Salah and Siyam and others from the Shari’ah terms.

Based upon it, the term Dar Al-Islam is applied to a country where the majority of its inhabitants are Christians for example, but it is part of the Islamic State. This is because the laws applied are the laws of Islam and the security of the land is by the Islamic security so long as it remains part of the Islamic State.

And in the same vein, with respect to the land where most of the people are Muslims but it is part of a State that does not rule by Islam, and its security is not upheld by the Muslim army but rather by the army of the disbelievers, the term Dar Al-Kufr would be applied to it despite the fact that most of its inhabitants were Muslim. So the meaning of the word Dar here is a Shari’ah reality and no regard is given to the proportion of Muslims when the term is used, rather the laws applied and the security of the people are considered. In order words, the meaning of Dar is taken from the Shari’ah texts which clarify this meaning, just like the meaning of the term Salah is taken from the Shari’ah texts which explained it. And similarly all Shari’ah terms take their meaning from the Shari’ah texts and not from the linguistic meaning of the term.

The rules regarding Dar Al-Kufr are completely different to the rules regarding Dar Al-Islam, so there are rules specific to it.

If the Muslim who lives in Dar Al-Kufr is unable to openly practise the rituals of his Deen there, then he has to move to another Dar Al-Kufr in which he would be able to do so due to His (swt) words:

“Verily, as for those whom the angels take (in death) while they are wronging themselves they (the angels) said: “In what (condition) were you” they reply: “We were weak and oppressed on the Earth” They say: “Was not the earth of Allah (swt) spacious enough for you to emigrate therein”. Such men will find their abode in Hell – what an evil destination” (TMQ 4:97).

This is if there is no Dar Al-Islam as is the case today.

However, if there was a Dar Al-Islam, the rules related to emigration from Dar Al-Kufr to Dar Al-Islam are accordingly:

1. Whoever is capable of emigrating, and is unable to openly practise his Deen in his country nor carry out the Islamic rules required of him – then the emigration to Dar Al-Islam is obligatory upon him. In this circumstance it is not permitted for him to reside in Dar Al-Harb, in other words, Dar Al-Kufr. Rather the emigration to Dar Al-Islam is obligatory. The evidence is the verse mentioned:

“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 (swt) spacious [enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a destination.” (TMQ 4:97) as it is also suitable for deduction here. Additionally, this is indicated by what Al-Tirmidhi reported from Jarir that the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

 أَنَا بَرِيءٌ مِنْ كُلِّ مُسْلِمٍ يُقِيمُ بَ يْنَ أَظْهُرِ الْمُشْرِكِينَ، قَالُوا: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ، وَلِمَ؟ « » قَالَ: لا تَ رَايَا نَارَاهُمَ

“I am free from every Muslim that lives among the idolaters (Al-Mushrikeen)." They said:"O Messenger of Allah (pbuh): How is that?" He said: "They should not see each other's campfires.” meaning that if both of them lit their fires you could not distinguish between them, as an allegory to not live in their abode.

As for what Al-Bukhari reported:

» لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَ عْدَ فَ تْحِ مَكَّة «

“There is no migration (Hijrah) after the conquest of Mecca” and his words:

» لاَ هِجْرَةَ بَ عْدَ الْفَتْحِ «

“There is no migration after Al-Fateh (conquest of Mecca)” and:

» قَدْ انْ قَطَعَتْ الْهِجْرَةُ وَلَكِ نْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّة «

“There is no emigration after the conquest (of Mecca) but only Jihad [(striving and fighting in the cause of Allah (swt)) will continue] and good intention.”, and what was reported that when Safwan b. Umayyah embraced Islam it was said to him: no Deen for the one who doesn’t emigrate, and so he came to Madinah and the Prophet said to him:

مَا جَاءَ بِكَ أَبَا وَهْبٍ ؟ قَالَ: قِيلَ إِنَّهُ لاَ دِينَ لِمَنْ لَمْ ي هَُاجِرْ، قَالَ: ارْجِعْ أَبَا « وَهْبٍ إِلَى أَبَاطِحِ مَكَّةَ، فَ قَرُّوا عَل ى مَسْكَنِكُمْ فَ قَدْ انْ قَطَعَتْ الْهِجْرَةُ وَلَكِنْ جِهَادٌ وَنِيَّةٌ، » فَإِنْ اسْ تُ نْ فِرْت مْ فَانْفِرُوا

“What brought you here Abu Wahb? So he said: It is said there is no Deen for the one who does not emigrate. He said: Abu Wahb – return to Mecca and stay in your places, there is migration bu only Jihad and good intention, and when you are called to battle, then go forth.” (as reported by Ibn Asakir). All of this negates emigration after the conquest of Makkah, but this negation has the Shari’ah Illah (cause) derived from the narration itself, since his words: “after the conquest of Mecca” comes in a form that includes the ‘Illah, which means that the conquest of Makkah was the ‘Illah behind negating the need to emigrate. Since the ‘Illah is present and absent with the Ma’lul (caused), it is not specific to the conquest of Makkah rather it applies to the conquest of any place, with the evidence of another report: “there is no migration after Al-Fateh (conquest of Mecca)”. This is supported by what Al-Bukhari reported from Aisha(ra) when she was asked about emigration; she replied:

 لاَ هِجْرَةَ الْيَ وْمَ، كَانَ الْمُؤْمِنُ يَفِرُّ بِدِينِهِ إِلَى اللهِ وَرَسُولِهِ مَخَافَةَ أَنْ ي فُْتَنَ . فَأَمَّا « » الْيَ وْمَ فَ قَدْ أَظْهَرَ اللهُ الإِسْلامَ، وَالْمُؤْمِنُ يَ عْبُدُ رَبَّهُ حَيْثُ شَاء

“There is no migration today – the believer used to escape with his Deen to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (pbuh), as he was afraid of facing the trials. As for today, Allah (swt) has made Islam prevail, and the believer can worship his Lord wherever he wishes” which indicates that the emigration for the Muslim before the conquest was in order to escape with his Deen thus avoiding being afflicted, and this was negated after the conquest of Makkah since he then became capable of openly practising his Deen and establishing the laws of Islam. So the conquest upon which this was based is the ‘Illah for negating the need to emigrate, and not the conquest of Makkah as a specific incident. Accordingly, what is meant is that there is no emigration from a land once it has been conquered. And his words to Safwan that emigration is finished meant emigration from Makkah after it had been conquered, since emigration is to leave the land of the disbelievers and from Dar Al- Kufr, so then if a land is conquered and becomes Dar Al-Islam then it does not remain as a land of disbelievers nor a Dar Al-Kufr, and so there is no Hijrah from it, and accordingly every land which is conquered does not have a Hijrah from it after its conquest (since it has become part of Dar Al-Islam). This is supported by what Ahmad reported from Mu’awiyah who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) say:

لا تَ نْ قَطِعُ الْهِجْرَةُ مَا تُ قُبِّ لَتْ التَّ وْبَةُ، وَلا تَ زَالُ التَّ وْبَةُ مَقْبُولَةً حَتَّى تَطْلُعَ « » الشَّمْسُ مِنْ ا لْمَغْرِبِ

“Migration will not end until repentance ends, and repentance will not end until the sun rises in the west.” and Ahmad also reported from the Prophet that he said:

» إِنَّ الْهِجْرَةَ لا تَ نْ قَطِعُ مَا كَانَ الْجِهَادُ «

“Migration will not end so long as there will be Jihad.” and in another narration:

» لا تَ نْ قَطِعُ الْهِجْرَةُ مَا قُوتِلَ الْعَدُوُّ «

“Migration will not end as long as the enemy is fought”, which indicate that the emigration from Dar Al-Kufr to Dar Al- Islam continues and does not end.

2. The one who is capable to emigrate, but is able to openly practice his Deen in his country, and establish the Shari’ah laws required of him. In this case the emigration is recommended and not obligatory…the evidence being that the Messenger (pbuh) used to encourage emigration from Makkah before its conquest while it remained Dar Al-Kufr, and explicit verses were revealed regarding it such as His (swt) words:

“Indeed, those who have believed and those who have emigrated and fought in the cause of Allah (swt) - those expect the mercy of Allah (swt). And Allah (swt) is Forgiving and Merciful.” (TMQ 2:218), and: “The ones who have believed, emigrated and strove in the cause of Allah (swt) with their wealth and their lives are greater in rank in the sight of Allah (swt). And it is those who are the attainers [of success].” (TMQ 9:20), and this is all explicit in requesting emigration. As for it not being obligatory, this is because the Messenger (pbuh) sanctioned Muslims who remained in Makkah. It is reported that when Nu’aim Al-Nahham wanted to emigrate, his tribe Banu Adi said to him: stay with us and remain upon your Deen, and we will prevent whoever wishes to harm you, and continue to support us as you have supported us; he used to help the orphans and widows. And so he delayed his emigration for a period and then emigrated later, and so the Prophet said to him:

 قَ وْمُكَ كَانُوا خَيْراً لَكَ مِنْ قَ وْمِي لِي، قَ وْمِي أَخْرَجُونِي وَأَرَادُوا قَ تْلِي، وقَ وْمُكَ « » حَفِظُوكَ وَمَنَ عُوكَ

“Your people were better to you than mine to me, my people expelled me and wanted to kill me, whereas yours took care of you and protected you” (mentioned by Ibn Hajar in Al-Isabah).

3.As for one who was not capable, then Allah (swt) is forgiving, and he is not requested to do so due to his inability to emigrate, either due to sickness or being forced to stay, or due to weakness such as women, children and the like. The evidence is His (swt) words:

“Except for the oppressed among men, women and children who cannot devise a plan nor are they directed to a way.” (TMQ 4:98).

4.As for one who is able to practise his Deen openly in his country, and implement the rules of the Shari’ah requested from him, and at the same time he possesses the capability to transform the Dar Al- Kufr he lives in into Dar Al-Islam – it is prohibited in such a situation for him to emigrate from Dar Al-Kufr to Dar Al-Islam, irrespective of whether he possessed the capability himself or by organising himself with the Muslims in his land, or through getting help from Muslims from outside of his land, or through cooperation with the Islamic State, or through any of the permitted means. It is obligatory upon him to work to change the Dar Al-Kufr into a Dar Al-Islam, and in such a situation it is prohibited for him to emigrate from there. The evidence for this is that the work to make his land join to Dar Al-Islam is obligatory, and so if he does not support it and he is capable to perform it and left behind the action of seeking it to join the Dar Al-Islam and instead emigrates, then he has committed a sin just like the neglect of any other obligation.

Based upon this, if there was a Dar Al-Islam, taking up permanent residence in Dar Al-Kufr is prohibited for the one who is obligated to emigrate. Above that, taking a permanent residence in Dar Al-Kufr makes that Muslim from the people of Dar Al-Kufr, and so the rules which apply to Dar Al-Kufr apply to his relationship with the Islamic State and from the angle of his relationships with other individuals, and so the Hudud (prescribed punishments) are not applicable to him, and Zakah is not collected from him, and anyone from Dar Al-Islam cannot inherit from him, and it is not obligatory to get maintenance from anyone in Dar Al- Islam from those people who are obligated to pay for him if he had resided there, because the Shari’ah is not applied upon the people of Dar Al-Kufr. Accordingly, they are not obligated by what the Muslims are obligated by and nor do they have the rights that the Muslims have, so they are not encompassed by the rules. The evidence for that is that the Muslims request two issues from those in Dar Al-Kufr: firstly, Islam; secondly, to come under the authority of Islam. It is related on the authority of Sulayman b. Buraydah on that of his father who said:

إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَ يْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « بِتَ قْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْراً، ثُمَّ قَالَ: اغْزُوا بِاسْمِ اللهِ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ، قَاتِلُوا مَنْ كَفَرَ بِاللهِ، اغْزُوا وَلاَ تَ غُلُّوا وَلاَ تَ غْدِرُوا وَلاَ تَمْثُ لُوا وَلاَ ت قْتُ لُوا وَلِيداً، وَإِذَا لَقِيتَ عَدُوَّكَ مِنْ الْمُشْرِكِينَ فَادْعُهُمْ إِلَى ثَلاَثِ خِصَالٍ أَوْ خِلالٍ، فَأَي تَُّ هُنَّ مَا أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْ بَلْ مِنْ هُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْ هُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى الإِسْلاَمِ فَإِنْ أَجَابُوكَ فَاقْ بَلْ مِنْ هُمْ وَكُفَّ عَنْ هُمْ، ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَن هَُّمْ إِنْ فَ عَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَ لَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِ رِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَب وَْا أَنْ يَ تَحَوَّلُوا مِنْ هَا فَأَخْ بِرْهُمْ أَن هَُّمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي »... الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ

“Whenever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah (swt) and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah (swt) and in the way of Allah (swt). Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah (swt). Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah (swt) like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers)” (reported by Muslim). So the Messenger (pbuh) said:

 ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَن هَُّمْ إِنْ فَ عَلُوا « » ذَلِكَ فَ لَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ

“Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen.” (reported by Muslim). This text makes emigration a precondition for them to have the same privileges and obligations as us, in other words, for them to be encompassed by the rules. The understanding of his words:

 » وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَن هَُّمْ إِنْ فَ عَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَ لَهُمْ «

“if they do so, they shall have” is that if they do not do that then they do not have the privileges of the Muhajireen, nor do their obligations apply to them, since achieving the result is connected to achievement of the condition, and so if the condition is not met the result is not achieved. So if they do not migrate then they do not have the privileges that the Muslims in Dar Al-Islam have. The words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

 فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَن هَُّمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي « » يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ

“Tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah (swt) like other Muslims” means from the angle that they will not be killed, nor will their wealth be taken as war booty, and not from the angle of the rules applying to them, since the subject of the rules was explicitly explained by the condition mentioned just previously. The Messenger (pbuh) explained the issue of wealth further, and mentioned in the same narration:

» وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْء «

“but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai'”, and so the Messenger (pbuh) considered that their refusal to migrate nullified their right to the war booty and spoils of war, and any other wealth is also encompassed through analogy with the war booty and spoils of war. In other words, they have no rights with regard to anything connected to wealth, and so the one who did not migrate to the abode of the Muhajireen is just like the non-Muslims with regards to these financial rights. Therefore, he does not have the privileges of the Muslims and nor do the obligations upon them apply to him, which means that the financial rules do not apply to him since he did not migrate to the abode of the Muhajireen. This was an emphasis on financial rights, although all of the rules do not apply to him due to the words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

» إِنْ فَ عَلُوا ذَلِكَ ف لَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ «

“if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen”. It is the case that the abode of the Muhajireen (which was Madinah at that time) alone was Dar Al- Islam, and anything else was Dar Al-Harb, in other words, Dar Al- Kufr, which is why when the Messenger (pbuh) used to go out on expeditions against every land other than the abode of the Muhajireen considering it to be Dar Al-Harb, according to the evidence related from Anas who said:

 إِذَا غَزَا قَ وْمًا لَمْ يُغِرْ حَتَّى يُصْبِحَ، فَإِنْ سَمِعَ أَذَانًا كَانَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « » أَمْسَكَ، وَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْمَعْ أَذَانًا أَغَارَ بَ عْدَ مَا يُصْبِحُ

“Whenever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) (saw) wanted to attack a people, he would wait until dawn, if he heard the Adhan (call to prayer) he would refrain, and if he did not hear it, he would pray and then attack” (reported by Al-Bukhari). And on the authority of Isam Al-Muzani who said: “Whenever the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) (saw) dispatched a task force or an expedition, he used to say to them:

» إِذَا رَأَيْ تُمْ مَسْجِدًا أَوْ سَمِعْتُمْ مُنَادِيًا فَلا تَ قْتُ لُوا أَحَدًا «

“If you see a mosque, or if you hear a Mu’adhin, do not kill anyone” (reported by the five except for Ibn Maja, and Al- Tirmidhi said it is Hasan Gharib). These two narrations indicate that the Messenger (pbuh) considered anything other than the abode of the Muhajireen to be Dar Al-Kufr and did not differentiate between Muslims and non-Muslims other than that the Muslims are not fought, not killed and their wealth is not taken as booty, whereas the non-Muslims are fought, they can be killed and their wealth can be taken as booty, while in everything else the rule is the same. So every land which is not Dar Al-Islam is considered to be Dar Al- Harb, and takes the rules of Dar Al-Harb.

This all indicates that the rule is related to the abode, and so whoever takes residency in Dar Al-Harb, in other words, Dar Al- Kufr, while there was Dar Al-Islam, then the rules of Dar Al-Harb apply to him whether he was a Muslim or a disbeliever, and they are the same in that respect, except that when the land is opened by force then the Muslim is not killed nor is his wealth taken as booty. In the same manner, the rules regarding Dar Al-Islam apply to the one who is resident in Dar Al-Islam, and the Muslims and the Dhimmi are equal in this respect. This means that differences in rules result from differences in the abode. Accordingly, whoever resides in Dar Al-Kufr whether Muslim or non-Muslim is not encompassed by the laws of Islam at all, due to the words of the Messenger (pbuh) in the narration of Sulayman b. Buraydah:

» أَن هَُّمْ إِنْ فَ عَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَ لَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ «

“if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen”, since its understanding is that if they did not do that, in other words, if they did not migrate to the abode of the Muhajireen, then they would not have their privileges and nor would their obligations apply to them; in other words, they are not encompassed by the laws of Islam which are applied in the Islamic State (Dar Al-Islam) since they do not carry its citizenship, except for two rules which are: the inviolability of their blood and what wealth they have at the time of the conquest of Dar Al-Kufr in which they lived, and this is due to words of the Messenger (pbuh) from ‘Abd Allah (swt) Bin Umar who said: The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said:

أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَ تَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاةَ وَي ؤُْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ، فَإِذَا فَ عَلُوا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلا بِحَقِّهَا » وَحِسَاب هُُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ

“I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah (swt), that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (pbuh), and they establish prayer, and pay Zakah and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah (swt).” (agreed upon from the narration of Umar, Abu Hurayrah, Ibn Umar and others, with the wording from Muslim). As for the one who permanently resides in Dar Al-Islam, whether they were Muslim or Dhimmi, they are covered by all the rules of Islam which the State implements in Dar Al-Islam other than what the Shari’ah exempts the non-Muslims from such as their worship.

This consideration of the abode from the angle of it being Dar Al-Kufr or Dar Al-Islam is what is referred to as citizenship. Whoever resides in Dar Al-Islam, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, carries the Islamic citizenship (citizenship of Dar Al-Islam), and so the rules of Islam are applied upon him by the State, and whoever resides in Dar Al-Kufr, whether a Muslim or disbeliever, carries the citizenship of Dar Al-Kufr, and so the rules of Islam are not applied upon him by the State. Accordingly, the consideration is given to the permanent residency and not to temporary stay, and so if a Muslim resides in Dar Al-Islam and goes to Dar Al-Kufr for the sake of commerce, treatment, seeking knowledge, visiting relatives, to take a vacation, or any other purpose, and resides there for months or years but he carries the Islamic citizenship, in other words, his permanent residency that he is going to return to was in Dar Al-Islam, then he is considered from the people of Dar Al307 Islam, even if he was living in Dar Al-Kufr. And if a Muslim was a resident in Dar Al-Kufr, and came to Dar Al-Islam for commerce, treatment, to seek knowledge, visit their relatives, to take a vacation, or any other purpose, and so stayed in Dar Al-Islam for a day, month, year, or more, but he carries the citizenship of Kufr, in other words, his permanent residency that he is going to return to is in Dar Al-Kufr then he is considered to be from the people of Dar Al-Kufr, and so the rules of the one given amnesty apply to him, and so he cannot enter Dar Al-Islam except with security, in other words, except with the permission of the State. Therefore, the subject is not temporary residency, however long that residency may be, but rather the subject is permanent residency, or in other words, carrying the citizenship.

Based upon this, if the Islamic State was established then the Khilafah would be present, the lands that it governs with the authority of the Muslims, and the security of Islam, then they would become Dar Al-Islam, and anything else would have to be examined: if they were not ruled by Islam or the security was the security of Kufr, then it would be Dar Al-Kufr or in other words, Dar Al-Harb even if all of the inhabitants were Muslims, and the rules of Dar Al-Harb would apply to it. However, if it was ruled by Islam, and the security was the security of Islam, but it had not joined to the Khilafah, then it would be Dar Al-Islam and the rules of Islam would apply to it, and the rule regarding it would be like the rule of the rebels, their contracts would be considered valid and their appointment as judges and governors would be valid, and the rule of their judgements and governorships is considered valid, but they are fought in order to make them give allegiance to the Khalifah due to the narration:

 » إِذَا بُويِعَ لِخَليفتَ يْنِ فَاقْ تُ لُوا الآخَرَ مِنْ هُمَا «

“When oath of allegiance has been taken for two Imams (Khulafaa'), kill the one for whom the oath was taken later.” (reported by Muslim from Abu Said); in other words, fight against him. Based upon this, if the Islamic State was established on any part of the Muslim lands such as Iraq, Turkey and Syria for example, then the rule of the Muslim who resides in England, America, Russia or anywhere else from the various abodes of Kufr and lands of the disbelievers would be the rule of the one who was in Dar Al-Harb, with no difference between the Muslim and disbeliever except for the inviolability of their blood and wealth upon the conquest of that land. As for the Muslims who are in the Muslim lands, then if they implemented Islam and did not become part of the Khilafah, then their lands are Dar Al-Islam and they would take the rule of rebels (Bugha). If they did not implement Islam then they would be Dar Al-Kufr. In the same way, every land from the lands of Islam which remained not implementing Islam, or whose external security was not the security of Islam, is considered to be Dar Al-Kufr, and the rule of Dar Al-Harb is applied to it, even if all the people there were Muslims. There is no difference whether it was neighbouring the Islamic State, which is the lands which the Khalifah of the Muslims ruled or were not adjacent to it. So the Islamic State will consider all the Islamic lands which were ruled by Islam, or which the majority of people there are Muslims, as a single Islamic land which must join the Islamic State, and be subservient to the Islamic flag, and for there to be a pledge to the Khalifah upon its neck.

The phrase the security of Islam means to be protected by the authority of Islam, and the phrase security of Kufr means to be protected by the authority of disbelief; it is mentioned in the Al- Muhit dictionary: “Safety and security like a companion against fear”, and Abu Dawud related from Sa’ad who said:

النَّاسَ إِلاَّ أَرْبَ عَةَ نَ فَرٍ وَامْرَأَتَ يْنِ لَمَّا كَانَ ي وَْمُ فَ تْحِ مَكَّةَ أَمَّنَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ « فَ لَمَّا كَانَ يَ وْمُ الْفَتْحِ قَالَ رَجُلٌ لا ي عُْرَفُ: لا قُ رَيْشَ بَ عْدَ « وعن أبِ بن كعب » وَسَمَّاهُمْ » أَمِنَ الأَسْوَدُ وَالأَبْ يَضُ إِلا فُلانًا وَفُلانًا نَاسًا سَمَّاهُمْ الْيَ وْمِ، فَ نَادَى مُنَادِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ

“When it was the day of the conquest of Makkah, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) gave security to the people, except for four men and two women who he named”, and from Ubay b. Ka’ab: “when it was the day of conquest a man who is not known said: (There will be) no Quraysh after today, so the announcer of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) said that the black and the white have been given safety, except so and so, people who he named” (reported by Ahmad in Al-Musnad with a Hasan chain, and Al- Hakim reported something similar in Al-Mustadrak as well as Ibn Hibban in his Sahih, both from Ubay b. Ka’ab). So this is the meaning of security. It being added to Islam or Kufr, is simply to connect it to the authority which is providing the security, because the security in the State is achieved by the authority. Therefore, the security of Islam is the security by the authority of the Muslims and the security of Kufr is the security by the authority of Kufr.

Domestic security is to secure the blood, wealth and honour of every one of the subjects by the security of the authority; whereas the external security is that the State’s borders are protected by its authority from invasion against it, and not by any other authority.

As for the second clause in the Article, its evidence is that Islam permitted entering into treaties with other nations; Allah (swt) said:

“Except for those who take refuge with a people between yourselves and whom is a treaty.” (TMQ 4:90), and He (swt) said: “And if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family.” (TMQ 4:92), and He (swt) said: “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.” (TMQ 8:72). The Messenger (pbuh) concluded a treaty with Yuhannatu Bin Ruba, the companion of Ayla, and concluded a treaty with Bani Damrah. There were conditions in these treaties which were applied, and it is a duty upon the Muslims to be bound by these conditions due to the words of the Prophet :

» وَالْمُسْلِمُونَ عَلَى شُرُوطِهِمْ «

“The Muslims will be held to their conditions” (reported by Al-Tirmidhi who said it was Hasan), as long as this condition does not contradict Islam. If the condition did contradict Islam it would be rejected due to the words of the Messenger (pbuh) in the narration of Al-Tirmidhi:

 » إِلاَّ شَرْطًا حَرَّمَ حَلاَلاً أَوْ أَحَلَّ حَرَامًا «

“except for a condition that makes the lawful to be unlawful or the unlawful to be lawful” and his words:

» مَا كَانَ مِنْ شَرْطٍ لَيْسَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ فَ هُوَ بَاطِلٌ «

“And any condition that is not found in the Book of Allah (swt) is invalid” (agreed upon from Aisha(ra)). Therefore, the Muslims carry out the implementation of these conditions according to what was mentioned in the texts of the treaties as long as they do not contradict Islam. So the evidence for this clause is the evidence that permits treaties and the evidence for the obligation of fulfilling the conditions.

As for the second half of this clause connected to the economic and commercial relations, this is in consideration of what harm upon the Ummah could result from the economic agreements, such as if the raw materials were exported out of the country, or resulted in the closure of factories in the country, or anything else similar, so, therefore, the agreements are restricted to whatever does not cause harm and anything which causes harm is prohibited through the application of the principle: “If one type of a permitted thing leads to a harm, only that one is prohibited, and the thing remains permitted”, and the same applies to the circumstances of the commercial agreements.

These States are legally considered to be belligerent States, because they are disbelievers who do not submit to Islamic authority, so they are considered to be belligerents because the Messenger (pbuh) said:

» أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ «

“I have been commanded (by Allah (swt)) to fight people until they testify that there is no true god except Allah (swt), and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)”, which is general. Their being legally considered as belligerents, in other words, with respect to the laws, is due to the agreements between us and them.

As for the third clause, its evidence is the evidence for the rules of Dar Al-Harb in the absence of any treaty between us and them. The evidence to not create any diplomatic relations with the countries which are mentioned in the Article is the fact that if their having embassies in a land which was under the authority of Islam would lead to harm because the job of embassies of countries like these is to try to increase the influence of their States in the countries where they had their embassies, so consequently they are prohibited in accordance with the practical application of the principle of prohibiting something permitted if it leads to harm. However, their subjects are not prevented from entering the country unless their entrance would lead to harm. And a visiting envoy would not be prohibited from entering the country unless the entrance of the specific person sent as an envoy, not their envoys generally, would lead to harm.

These countries are legally considered as belligerent (rather than actual belligerent) due to their falling under his words:

 » أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللهِ «

“I have been commanded (by Allah (swt)) to fight people until they testify that there is no true god except Allah (swt), and that Muhammad is the Messenger (pbuh) of”, from the angle that they are disbelievers. As for their being considered as belligerents from a legal rather than actual perspective, this is because there is no fighting between us and them, and there has been no announcement of an actual war between us from our side or theirs. If some or part of these countries come to be in a situation of actual war with us, in other words, if they attacked the Muslim lands, then they would be treated according to the fourth clause of this Article which deals with actual war, and for that reason America and Britain are considered as actual belligerents after they began their war upon Iraq and Afghanistan, and any other country which declared war on any of the Muslim lands would also be considered the same, and the rules to do with actual war are applied as long as the situation of war remains between us and them.

As for the fourth clause, its evidence is the evidence of Jihad from the issue of fighting the disbelievers, and the evidences that make the blood and property of the non-Muslims from amongst them permitted, and the evidences of fighting in the battle; Allah (swt) said:

“O you who have believed, fight those adjacent to you of the disbelievers.” (TMQ 9:123), and the Prophet said:

» أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتََّّ يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللهُ وَأَنَّ مَُُمَّدًا رَسُولُ الله «

“I have been commanded (by Allah (swt)) to fight people until they testify that there is no true god except Allah (swt), and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah (pbuh)” agreed upon with the wording from Muslim, and he made an exception for the Muslims amongst them with his words :

» فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا عَصَمُوا مِنِِّ دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالََمُْ إِلا بَِِقِّهَا «

“If they said so their blood and riches are guaranteed protection on my behalf except where it is justified by law”. And Allah (swt) said:

“And whoever turns his back to them on such a day, unless swerving [as a strategy] for war or joining [another] company, has certainly returned with anger [upon him] from Allah (swt).” (TMQ 8:16), and also due to the words of the Messenger (pbuh) :

 » اجْتَنِبُوا السَّبْعَ الْمُوبِقَاتِ «

“Avoid the seven destructive things”, and he enumerated them until he said:

 » وَالتَّوَلِِّ يوَْمَ الزَّحْفِ «

“fleeing from the battlefield” (agreed upon from the narration of Abu Hurayrah).

And other rules of fighting and battles and the rest of the evidences regarding Dar Al-Harb and the battles.

It is not permitted to have a permanent peace treaty with these countries that were practically belligerent, in other words, a permanent cessation of fighting, or permanent truce, since this prevents Jihad which continues until the day of Judgement, just as a permanent truce prevents the spread of Islam until Allah (swt) makes it dominant over all other Deens. Allah (swt) says:

“And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah (swt).” (TMQ 8:39), and the Messenger (pbuh) said:

» وَالْجِهَادُ مَاضٍ مُنْذُ بَ عَثَنِي اللَّهُ إِلَى أَنْ ي قَُاتِلَ آخِرُ أُمَّتِي الدَّجَّالَ «

“And jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah (swt) sent me as a Prophet until the day the last member of my community will fight with the Dajjal (Antichrist).” (reported by Abu Dawud from Anas).

As for a temporary treaty with these countries, and a temporary cessation of the war, it is looked at as follows:

a. If the State which is in the actual war against us, has land which is not Islamic land upon which its entity is formed, then it is permitted to have a temporary truce with it, in other words, to stop the war with it for a temporary time, if the pause is in the interest of Islam and the Muslims, and according to the conditions that the Shari’ah confirmed.

The evidence for this is the treaty of Al-Hudaybiyah, which was between the Islamic State which the Messenger (pbuh) had established in Madinah and the Qurayshi state which was established upon the land which Islam had not yet conquered, in other words, it was not established upon Islamic land.

b.If the State which was at war with us, was established as an entity in its entirety upon Islamic land, in other words, the entity did not have any land connected to it which had not been conquered by the Muslims, such as Israel – the Jewish State which has stolen Palestine – then it is not permitted to have a treaty with it, since the establishment of this State was invalid according to the Shari’ah, and since a treaty with it would mean to give up Islamic land to it, which is prohibited and a crime against Islam. Rather, the situation of actual war has to remain with it, irrespective if there was a truce which was contracted with it by illegitimate rulers in the Muslim lands, or not.

And so accordingly any treaty with the Jewish State, even over a handspan of the land, is prohibited by the Shari’ah because it is usurping and occupying and its whole entity is established on Muslim land and it is a surrender of Islamic land to it, and establishing its control over the Muslims there, which is not permitted according to the Shari’ah. Islam requires that all of the Muslims fight against it, and so their armies must be sent to fight, and all those capable of fighting be gathered as soldiers in the army, and for this to continue until the Jewish State is finished and the Muslim lands are rescued from it. Allah (swt) says:

“And never will Allah (swt) give the disbelievers over the believers a way [to overcome them].” (TMQ 4:141) and His (swt) words:

“So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you.” (TMQ 2:194) and: “And expel them from wherever they have expelled you.” (TMQ 2:191).

The foreign policy revolves around carrying the call to Islam; and the relationship between the State and all of the other states is built upon this basis.

This Article is taken from the letters that the Messenger (pbuh) wrote to the kings, and the preparation of the army of Usamah to Balqa and Al-Darum in Palestine in order to fight the Romans, and his insistence upon sending the Army despite his illness which he was to die from. This indicates that the call to Islam is the basis for the relationship between the Islamic State and any other state in the world, and this relationship necessitates the equipping of armies, and the preparation for fighting, such that if the opportunity to fight those who do not respond to the call to Islam after it has been conveyed to them in a manner which attracts their attention, then the force required for Jihad is ready. Therefore, the call to Islam is the basis for every relationship with any state, so it is the basis for the foreign policy.