Is Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement regarding the criterion for the land of Islam and the land of disbelief

The questioner: O Shaykh, the question is precisely this: we want to know, and I personally read that Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) preferred the opinion of the majority that the land over which Islamic rulings prevail, if that is correct, is a land of Islam. They cited the example of Khaybar when its people all became dhimmis (protected non-Muslims), and when the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) appointed a Companion to govern it, it became a land of Islam because Islamic rulings prevailed over it. As for the land over which the rulings currently in effect are socialist or man-made laws, is the land over which man-made laws prevail a land of Islam or a land of disbelief, setting aside the people? And Ibn Taymiyyah, in addition to this, was asked about the village of Maridan when it was a land of Islam, and you know more than I do about this, and he said it is not in an intermediate state. We ask for clarification of this issue.

The Shaykh: I think I answered this earlier, and it seems necessary to repeat it. What rulings follow when we say this is a land of war and we say this is a land of Islam? What rulings follow from saying this is a land of war? Is not the first of them fighting it?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Okay, I addressed the answer to this problem or this question when I said: if there were a Muslim state applying the Shari'ah of Allah, would it fight the Algerian or Syrian people? Tell me, based on what you mentioned regarding the reports from Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyyah.

The questioner: Repeat, O Shaykh, may Allah reward you.

The Shaykh: I said earlier, and I repeat what I said earlier: I say, if we assume that there exists, or will exist one day—and this is inevitable—a state that rules by what Allah has revealed, will this state fight the Syrian people and reach all the other peoples on the Mediterranean Sea, including Algeria, Libya—and what do you know about Libya—and Tunisia, and what do you know about Tunisia? Are these peoples Muslim or non-Muslim? The answer is: they are Muslim. Do these states rule by what Allah has revealed? The answer is: no. So, does this state, which we assume will rule by what Allah has revealed, fight these Muslim peoples?

The questioner: But, O Shaykh...

The Shaykh: No, no, excuse me. You are not unaware of your saying "but." What are you correcting? I did not say anything for you to correct. So you answer my question.

The questioner: You are evading the question...

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner: O Shaykh, we are now discussing the creed of the people of the Sunnah and the community, that they judge by the apparent.

The Shaykh: You have not answered me. O Shaykh, say yes or say no, then explain whatever you wish.

The questioner: I said no, O Shaykh. Naturally, they do not fight the Muslim peoples.

The Shaykh: But this is the necessary implication of the statement I mentioned earlier, and therefore I am keen to keep the answer concise so that we do not enter into labyrinths that we do not need. Since you are now saying that this state which rules by what Allah has revealed does not fight these Muslim peoples, how does that definition apply to it? The definition you mentioned is true and applicable to these peoples, because the rulers over them do not rule by the Shari'ah of Islam. So how do we agree? There is a contradiction, a negation, night and day, truth and falsehood. It is necessary to distinguish between them. I believe the distinction is what I told you earlier.

The Shaykh : May Allah reward you.