Is Ibn al-Qayyim’s statement regarding the criterion for the land of Islam and the land of disbelief
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : O Shaykh, the question is not exactly like that. 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. And they cited as evidence the case of Khaybar when... the people of Khaybar, all of them, were People of the Book under protection (dhimmis), 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 are applied a land of Islam or a land of disbelief, setting aside the people? And in addition to this, Ibn Taymiyyah was asked, and you know more than I do about this, about the village of Maridan when it was a land of Islam. He was asked and said it is not in an intermediate state. We ask for clarification of this issue.
The Shaykh : I think I answered this in what I said 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 that applied 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 Islamic or non-Islamic? The answer is: they are Islamic. 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 statement “but.” But to correct what? What did I say for you to correct? You, answer my question.
The questioner : I will answer the question...
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : O Shaykh, we are now of the belief 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 Islamic peoples.
The Shaykh : But this is the necessary implication of the statement I quoted earlier. And therefore, I am careful to keep the answer concise so that we do not enter into labyrinths that we have no need for. Since you are saying now that this state which rules by what Allah has revealed does not fight these Muslim peoples, how does that definition apply to it? And the definition is true of it, is it not? The definition you quoted 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, there is night and day, there is truth and falsehood. It is necessary to distinguish between them. I believe the distinction is what I told you earlier.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : I think I answered this in what I said 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 that applied 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 Islamic or non-Islamic? The answer is: they are Islamic. 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 statement “but.” But to correct what? What did I say for you to correct? You, answer my question.
The questioner : I will answer the question...
The Shaykh : Please go ahead.
The questioner : O Shaykh, we are now of the belief 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 Islamic peoples.
The Shaykh : But this is the necessary implication of the statement I quoted earlier. And therefore, I am careful to keep the answer concise so that we do not enter into labyrinths that we have no need for. Since you are saying now that this state which rules by what Allah has revealed does not fight these Muslim peoples, how does that definition apply to it? And the definition is true of it, is it not? The definition you quoted 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, there is night and day, there is truth and falsehood. It is necessary to distinguish between them. I believe the distinction is what I told you earlier.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.