Unjust Ruler

Q9- Can we say that every non-Muslim ruler is an oppressive (zalim)or unjust (ghayr adil) ruler?

A- The word zulm (inflicting injustice) has two aspects. There is practical oppression which confiscates the freedom, rights and properties of others. And there is the zulm which concerns the plundering of legal rights. Islam says of oppressors that they have inflicted injustice on themselves by not believing, so it regards infidelity as a stance of zulm against Allah. (Also), it regards every person who occupies a position that is not his legal position as an oppressor (zalim). Thus, every non-Muslim (ruler) is an unjust ruler, since he is unjust to the position he is in because he does not represent the legal authority. However, he could be just in his conduct with the people; it was narrated that the Messenger (p.) of Allah, the most Exalted, said: "I was born in the time of a just ruler", referring to (the Persian king ) Kisra Anoshirwan, who was famed for his justice.

So, when you say al-Hakim al-jair (the unjust ruler), you mean – in jurisprudence terminology – the ruler who has unlawfully taken the (ruling) position, whether this was through his own endeavor or through the state and the law, which produced the ruler.

Q10- But Western rulers nowadays are the product of elections in which their people participate to choose them.

A- when we talk about Islam the religion, which Allah wants all humanity to abide by as a form of rule, it is natural that any form of rule- part from the rule of Islam – is not a legal rule, even if the ruler has been elected by the people.

So we have to study the matter in terms of the foundation of this legality or the basis of the rule: is it based on the votes of the majority, whatever that majority is, or the majority with certain characteristics, or is it a rule based on certain characteristics regardless of the majority?

Submitting to the laws of non-Islamic governments

Q 11 – Another (major) issue: submitting to the laws of non-Islamic government: How should the Muslim refugee deal with these laws?

A- There are two types of laws that are contradictory to a clear Islamic ruling, meaning that the person is supposed to follow laws in areas where Islam prohibits dealing with anything related to them, whilst others rank among the allowable (mubah). If the laws are prohibited, then the Muslim is not allowed to implement them unless in so doing he would be subjected to unbearable harm, which would constitute a case of compulsion.

But if these laws are part of the allowable (mubah) matters that are not forbidden by Islam, then we see (rule) that it is necessary for the Muslim to abide by them, according to the contract, which he has entered into with the host country (in his visa or leave to stay or grant of asylum).

Q12- Your ruling (fatwa) prohibiting evading and disobeying the law has a broad positive effect even on Westerners who think that we have a certain understanding of the law that is conventional…

A- The Muslim must abide by the rules of public order in any society that he dwells in, first from the contract aspect, and second at the secondary consideration (al-inwan ath-thanawi), so as to give Islam the civilized image that would encourage people to embrace it.

Relying on a non-Islamic judiciary

Q13- and what about relying on a non-Islamic judiciary in disputes?

A- The principle standpoint (ruling) is that the Muslim is not allowed to rely on any judge who does not rule according to Allah's code. However, if getting his legal rights cannot be achieved unless he resorts to a non-Muslim judge, then a Muslim is allowed to do so; this is the reality in the West today, especially if the dispute is with a non-Muslim, and so we can implement the ilzam (obligation ) principle: 'Make them abide by what they have made obligatory on themselves.' So if the judge rules not in accordance with what the Muslim abides by but in accordance with what the opponent abides by, then we can deal with him on this basis.

Working in a non-Muslims government

Q 14- regarding work in the government of a non-Muslim ruler: do the Grand Islamic jurists allow this?

A- We allow such work so long as it is related to the higher Islamic interests of the Muslims living there, or to the big Islamic issues. There is no problem with Muslims getting employment in departments of non-Islamic government, whether in scientific, administrative, industrial, agricultural or other areas, as long as it does not harm the general Islamic situation in the relationship between that state and Muslims, and provided that it does not disregard the individual Islamic rulings concerning forbidden practices.

Q15- If the job is in the security services (the police), so that a Muslim might be stopping asylum seekers form entering the country –What is the ruling in this case?

A-This matter has to be studied in terms of its qualitative interest, since it is not allowable for a person to be employed in a job in which he feels that he is inflicting injustice, through his job, on others, even in the governments of Islamic societies. But if we assume that the Muslims are a big community (in a given country) and that their abstention from security and administrative jobs would harm the strength of their presence, there is no problem with that from the Islamic legal point of view. In fact, we have ruled for some people who hold Western nationalities that If they find that the interests of Islam, regarding Islamic issues, lie in voting for one nominee in favor of another, as in a case where this nominee supports Islamic issues and stands against Zionism and the enemies of Islam, or perhaps can take better care of the Muslims than the other, we allow participation.

We may summarize this in terms of the existence of an Islamic interest for the Islamic community which resides there, or the big Islamic issues that are afflicted by electing this or that nominee or by gaining some control or say in that society to a level in which they can have a positive influence regarding the Muslims' interests in decision taking, as the Muslims should work to acquire advanced (important) positions if these lead to actively supporting Islamic issues, or to protecting them from harm, or to strengthening the Muslims residing in that country.

Q 16- Is the matter the same regarding the army, which is under the orders of the Western state, and which may serve in the Peace Keeping Forces (in Lebanon)?

A- The principle standpoint (ruling) is that, it is forbidden to join an army that may oppress peoples (of the world) or inflict harm on Islam, unless there is an overriding Islamic interest.

Q 17- Is it necessary to obtain special permission?

A- (The person) must turn to the people who have experience in general Islamic interests.

Previous // NEXT