Q: What do you think of the saying that such kind of relations is permitted except with the United States of America and Israel considering that they represent the principal entities and regimes antagonistic toward Islam?

A: I say that Muslims can establish relations with all the countries of the world provided that those relations are based on the Islamic interests that are common with others, in a context of mutual respect and under the normal relations which would be governed by what Muslims need from others. The United States represents in the meantime a state that expresses hostility and antagonism toward Islamic ambitions; however, when the latter changes its policy, relations could be established with it on the above stated basis.
As for Israel, relations can never be established with it even if it changes its policy because the pillar upon which it rose is illegitimate, for it has raped the land as well as the human being in order to found itself. Therefore, a comparison can never be drawn between Israel and other countries with respect to this point because the existence of Israel was erected on the rubble and wreckage of the Palestinians, and if we want to describe the reality of the Jews in Palestine, we would say that they are the people who expelled another people from their own land in order to take their place. And so, no Muslim could give Israel legitimacy because compulsion is unlawful according to God’s rule: {And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.} (4: 141)

Q: Let us say that Israel has abandoned its current policy and restored the right to each claimer, returned Palestinians, without exceptions, to their homes and towns, and accepted that the rule should be laid down on the basis of a general public poll and free elections….­ Could it be regarded then differently?

A : Well, the Jews who came from different sites of the world must return to wherever they have been, and the Palestinians who were wrongfully expelled from their own homes must be restored to their land. Then, the Jews who emerge originally from Palestine can stay and try to find a way to live and coexist with Muslims and Christians in general. We, Muslims, believe that the rule must be in the hands of Muslims as much as that is manageable; however, if that proves to be unreachable, we must then work towards finding a realistic formula on the basis of the lesser harm and the lesser evil.

Q: don’t you think that insisting that the Jews return to their previous homes represent a kind of overstepping the right that God had bestowed on human beings; that is, to live wherever they want?

A: No, I don’t because they have established themselves on the destruction and ruin of another people. When Jews flowed towards Palestine, the latter was not an empty land giving people a reason to think that it is lawful or permissible to declare its appropriation; nay, it was an inhabited land where Palestinian people owned the properties. And those Jews (the Jews who are not originally from Palestine) who came from all over the world captured and occupied the land of Palestine and that is why their being in Palestine has no legitimacy. As a matter of fact, you have the right to dwell in any land you want, but what you have no right to do is to seize the homes of others and grab their lands. As for the story saying that Palestinians could sell their lands for the Jews and get a good compensation in return; well, this might be seemingly permissible. However, looking at the issue more deeply, if such an act led to the control of unbelievers over Muslims through taking hold of their sovereignty and lands; indeed, that would be unlawful and definitely unaccepted.

Q: Does the leadership of the state or the party have the right to decide on whether to establish relations with a certain party or not; or is this a matter that needs the consultation of the leading jurist or the religious authority?

A: In such cases, the authority figure whose legitimacy is based on the legitimate aspects of jurisdiction must be consulted. On the other hand, the said authority figure must not be arbitrary in his decisions or opinions especially with respect to the matters in which he has no significant experience; otherwise he would lose the justness upon which his jurisdiction is founded. Nay, he must have recourse to the people of experience who could determine the good and the evil in this regard whether the question was at the level of the relation between two states or at the level of the relation between an Islamic movement or party and another state or party. Accordingly, we must resort to those who are endowed with legitimacy. And it goes without saying that between a jurist and a non-jurist who both had treated the issue, the opinion of the jurist remains more reliable provided that he decides on his actions and attitudes after discussing the said issue with the people of expertise.

The limits and specifications of the just state

Q: How can we define the just state in terms of limits and specifications? And what is the difference between such a state and the oppressive one?

A: The just state is the one that enjoys a legitimate leadership according to the understanding and characteristics of a legitimate leadership related to the various jurisprudences in this context.
The just state is the one that enjoys a just law, meaning that it goes in conformity with the legitimate rule.
The just state is the one in which rules and judgments are rightly and justly implemented, meaning that observing people’s abidance by the law must be carried out through just and legitimate means.
The oppressive state is the one that has no legitimate leadership, no Islamic law and no Islamic practices.

Q: Generally speaking, can we consider the state that people had democratically chosen and recognized a legitimate state or not?

A: This issue varies according to the different jurisprudential lines concerning the question of legitimacy. In fact, if we adopt the principle of consultation as a way and mode of ruling that carries legitimacy, then the leadership of the state must be elected through the process of consultation; that is, the said leadership must be principally and firmly based on the said consultation. Sometimes, the result of this process could meet people’s consent on a certain person who fulfills the required and adopted legitimate specifications. The core issue is not about people choosing whomsoever they deem suitable or favorable, for he, actually, might turn out to be an unbeliever who does not embody the legitimate requirements that have to be found in the ruler. Therefore, people’s consent does not generate legitimacy; and even if we resort to consultation, the leadership must meet all the required standards and conditions that need to be present in the ruler.
Embracing the principle of the rule of the jurists, however, means that the jurist must be subjected to tests and experiments by people in order to determine whether he, amongst all other jurisprudents, is worthy of being appointed to their leadership. So, the jurist has to obtain the acceptance and unanimity of people because that is the standard that furnishes his rule with effectiveness or value, gives him authenticity as a ruler and makes him the authority that ought to be obeyed as in conformity with the principle of the jurists¡¯ rule.
Therefore, we do not believe that the consecutive governments that the current regimes are witnessing could be considered as just governments because their leaderships do not enjoy legitimacy (according to the recognized jurisprudential specifications). Besides, the law in force is not an Islamic one not to mention that the way law is implemented on the ground does not comply with the Islamic conceptions and standards.

Q: Let’s say there is a state that raises the slogan of Islam but does not comply with some of the Islamic laws such as dealing with usury, not sticking to restrictions… etc.­ Do we consider such a state a just one?

A: If the fact that it does not abide by some of the Islamic religious laws comes as a result of a compelling circumstance that provides a legal condition based on the laws of the struggle between good and evil; that does not deny the said state its Islamic mold because its non-Islamic behavior is imposed by a temporal Islamic strategy. As for the case when the state does not comply with the authority of these laws; well, that does not deny it its Islamic characteristic either. However, it would be considered a deviating state, which means that it is an Islamic state but which lives deviation from what is right with relation to some of its laws. This deviation might take the form of subjecting the Muslims of such states to the non-Islamic Personal Status Law and that is regarded as an act of unbelief. As for subjecting non-Muslims to the above stated law - with respect to their laws -; that is governed by the covenants concluded between Muslims and others.

Breaching the laws of a state and encroaching on its properties

Q: When is it permissible to violate the laws of the state or to rebel against it? And is it lawful to encroach on its properties?

A: We do not deliver any legal, advisory opinion that permits taking over unbelievers’ properties; was this unbeliever a state or a person. As for rebelling against the laws of a certain state; well, if this state oppresses its people and Muslims were part of that people; on that account, Muslims have the right to fight to overthrow the government or the ruling power. However, Muslims must not contravene the codes and regulations of the country they are living in if that would disrupt the established order; all the more so, they could be forbidden from doing so.

Q: Some jurists make it permissible to encroach on the properties of the non-Islamic state and to take possession of it after obtaining the authorization of the legitimate ruler, considering that those properties belong to an unknown owner. What is your opinion?

A : We have two conflicting opinions with regard to the issue of the state’s properties. The first one restricts the property to the sound and chosen person. It further holds that body corporate or legal persons such as states, organizations, parties or mosques have no possessions.­ Thus, what is called the properties of the state does not actually belong to the state because the state represents a moral entity and consequently it does not own. On that account, the properties are considered to be belonging to some unknown owner, and in such cases the fate of this kind of properties is left to the legitimate ruler to determine.
On the other hand, the second opinion maintains that a state owns properties. However, the official and formal approval of the legitimate ruler must be obtained in order for those who run the country. If the state was not authorized by the legitimate ruler, it won’t actually be legitimate and in consequence does not own any property; and if it did, such ownership would be deemed illegitimate and fall under the classification of the properties belonging to an unknown owner.
Nevertheless, when jurists find that the properties of the state are of an unknown owner in both of the above mentioned cases, they do not authorize their followers to encroach on or dispose of the state’s properties especially if that might lead to a public disorder and chaos.
A third opinion believes that there is no difference between the state and any other person with regard to owning properties. It, furthermore, upholds that there is no distinction between the material human living party - that is, the natural person - and the artificial person; from this perspective, this opinion says that the state owns properties because it represents a recognized artificial or juridical existence well established inside our mind and conscience. Therefore, whenever we speak about evidences proving that the property owned by a person or a party must be respected, the properties of the state would also be included and implied.

Q: Amidst all these opinions, what do you personally think?

A: On the one hand, I believe that states have possessions and the properties belonging to a state are regarded as those of an identified and known owner. On the other hand, I think that the properties of the state show differences even if we say that the properties the owner of which is unknown are left to the legitimate ruler to decide about. In fact, we could say that the properties of the state are the properties of the nation and based on that, we must have recourse to the legitimate ruler in his capacity as responsible for the nation’s properties not in his capacity as responsible for the properties the owner of which is unknown.