What is the fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Mardin, and to what extent is it relevant to our current reality?

The Shaykh : Yes, please go ahead.

The questioner : The fatwa of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah regarding Mardin and its relevance to our current reality?

The Shaykh : By Allah, I do not remember Ibn Taymiyyah’s fatwa concerning Mardin right now. If you have the image in mind, or if some of our brothers present do, let us hear it from them and look at the reality now and what it was like in that era.
The student : The Shaykh ... stated that the territories occupied by the Tatars are neither a land of Islam nor a land of war.
Another student: He called it something in between, meaning it is neither one nor the other.
The student : Yes, but what did he establish as a consequence of that? Because the naming is not what is important; the important thing is what follows from this middle position—that it is neither a land of Islam nor a land of war. What follows from that?

The Shaykh : Our Shaykh, he established fighting those in charge of those territories, or the departure of the invaders, or something similar. Some groups in Egypt are applying the fatwa as it is, regarding revolution and weapons and the like.
The student : Our Shaykh, you have arranged the fighting of those in control of those lands, or the departure of the warriors, or something similar. Some groups in Egypt are issuing fatwas as they are, regarding the revolution and weapons, and so on.

The Shaykh : This means that the clarification is what opens the field for discussion. If that is what was intended by the question, I have no doubt that Ibn Taymiyyah does not want a group to rise up to fight the occupying usurper of the Islamic land, which he ruled is neither a land of war nor a land of Islam. It does not mean that Ibn Taymiyyah wants a group of Muslims to fight the occupying ruler of the land of Islam when they are not prepared to fight him. This is the first point. Second: I do not see, despite the deviation of many of today's rulers in some Islamic countries, that we should assume they have occupied the Islamic lands like the Jewish usurper. There is a difference between the two cases. So the basic condition here is that those who want to rise up against the ruler, as came in the authentic hadith, must see from him clear disbelief. It is not our concern after that whether he is an occupier or one of us, as is the reality today in some countries, for example Algeria, with great regret. This is the first matter: that the open disbelief is seen. The second thing is that those rising up against this ruler must have prepared themselves materially and morally at the same time, such that it is predominant in their opinion that they can eliminate this ruler from whom clear disbelief has appeared. Here the matter returns, as we said earlier, to that solid branch: the predominance of opinion. It must be predominant in the opinion of these Muslims who want to overthrow that ruler and establish the state of Islam in the land of Muslims that they have fulfilled the obligation of moral and material preparation at the same time. And what we see today, with great regret, in all the countries where there is oppression from some rulers and rising up against them by some Islamic groups, we do not find that they have fulfilled the obligation of what He - Blessed and Exalted is He - said: It is nothing but revolutions, rising up, meaning it is not about organization, not about upbringing, and not about establishing a Muslim ruler, even as they did, for example, now in the occupied land, where they established a Palestinian state, but the ruler is outside the country.
So here, material and moral preparation is necessary, and this is not present. And we see that the matter in reality, and this is what we keep repeating over and over, is that the Muslims have no standing with what they are in of deviation from Islam in creed, jurisprudence, and behavior as a nation. And I do not imagine, or I do not want anyone to understand that we mean that this nation, which counts millions, must all be true believers on one heart. No, but it is obligatory for the group that wants to fulfill the duty of warning the ruler who rules by other than what Allah revealed to leave the ruling to whoever wants to rule by what Allah revealed, otherwise fighting, otherwise jihad. Now there is nothing of this; it is nothing but actual rising up, meaning revolutions. Islam does not approve of revolutions; it approves of organization and preparation, as mentioned in the previous verse. So now we find that many of the enthusiasts rush to the results and do not prepare the preparation that Allah - Mighty and Majestic - imposes. I believe, for example, if we assume that in one way or another the group of Emigration and Denial won in Egypt and eliminated the Egyptian government that rules by other than what Allah revealed, where is the Egyptian people and where is their Islam? Is it a Muslim people? So if we assume, as I said once regarding the Party of Liberation, whose system is the establishment of the Muslim state, but I always remember: "Sa'd led the camels, and Sa'd was not covered. This is not, O Sa'd, how you lead the camels." So I say, suppose, O people, that in a moonless night the Party of Liberation overcame the non-Muslim ruler and took over the radio and said, "Here is Islam, the first decision issued by the new Islamic government," there is no Muslim people to carry it out. Why? Because this people is not raised on Islam. And so I believe that His saying - the Exalted - : Excuse me, His saying - the Exalted - : , is our model from A to Z, from his point of departure - peace and blessings be upon him - to the establishment of the state, or meaning the laying of the nucleus of the Muslim state in Medina. So what did the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - do? He called to the oneness of Allah, he raised individuals from those around him, and these in turn raised those around them, and so on until the circle of Muslims expanded in number at that time, and the small number of enemies of the Muslims, who were the disbelievers of Quraysh. The Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - formed this nucleus, and the first battle that occurred between him and the polytheists, victory was for these believers. O people, the problem of the Muslims today, the problem of those who want to fight the ruling disbelievers today, is that they do not have unity of thought, unity of jurisprudence, unity of behavior; rather, they are scattered. And so it is necessary that we follow the Messenger - peace and blessings be upon him - from the point of beginning to the end. And this is what we see the groups today do not pay attention to practically. The Emigration group in Egypt is a gathering of young, enthusiastic men, and we hear about them what I do not know; perhaps you have heard that they sometimes come with actions in which they make permissible matters that the wise Shari'ah does not make permissible.
The student : Another student: And what do they call it?
Al-istihlal.
The student : Another student: ... on a gold jewelry shop.
And prepare for them whatever strength you can and of the binding of horses, whereby you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy.