Bismillah Ar-Rahmaan Ar-Raheem

Concerning Aqd Al Amaan: Covenants of Security



Introduction:

The following text is taken from a discussion, between myself and another brother, on a Muslim Internet forum, and deals with Aqd Al Amaan - the covenant of security - which Muslims may, or may not, have with the kuffar while those Muslims reside or live in the lands of the kuffar. [See Footnote (1) below.]

Regarding this important topic, the questions that need to be asked and answered are: what is the exact nature of the covenant that we may have with the kuffar if we reside or enter the lands of the kuffar, and what are the conditions that nullify or may nullify this covenant?

It has been claimed, by some Muslims, that there exists what they call an "implicit" covenant which is made between a Muslim and the kuffar (or, more especially, with the kaffir authorities) when a Muslim obtains a Visa to enter or reside in the lands of the kuffar. Some other Muslims, myself included, incline toward the view that this is mistaken - and that for there to be a covenant, an agreement in the Shariah sense, there must be a verbal or written agreement between individuals. That is, that the conditions, and terms, are known to both parties - or at least they have agreed something, in person.

In addition, it has been claimed that those Muslims residing in the lands of the kuffar have an implicit covenant with the kuffar by virtue of the fact that the kuffar (or, more especially, the kaffir authorities) allow Muslims the so-called "freedom" and the "protection" accorded to kaffir citizens. Again,  some other Muslims, myself included, incline toward the view that this is mistaken. I, in particular, take exception to the use of kaffir terms such as "freedom" - which terms I consider are meaningless for a Muslim, and which terms are kaffir names for their Tawagheet. (See, for example, The Revival of Aql and The Kaffir Error of Freedom.)

However, there is no dispute that if we Muslims have a covenant, it must be honoured, for there are Ahadith which stress the importance of honouring a covenant, such as Abu Dawud (4423) and as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"You who believe, honour your covenants." 5: 1 Interpretation of Meaning
Furthermore, no covenant or treaty can be unconditional because that is unfair, and goes against honour, for as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says :

"Allah loves those who are honourable in their duty: therefore honour your obligations with those of the Mushrikeen with whom you have a treaty - provided they have not supported anyone against you nor themselves have violated it." 9:4 Interpretation of Meaning


In addition, it should be understood that even if there is a covenant of security, it does not mean that we have to obey the laws of the kuffar if by obeying these laws we are doing what is haram. If the kuffar try to force us to do this, by for example making laws that make it an offence for us to do what is halal, then they are acting dishonourably, and against the principle of the covenant itself.

Furthermore, if we assume that there is such a covenant for Muslims residing in the lands of the kuffar, does that mean that we as individual Muslims have to accept whatever the kuffar do to our brothers and sisters, in the lands of the kuffar or elsewhere? That is - as some claim - that such an "implicit" covenant is only abrogated (broken) when we, as an individual, are attacked, or dishonoured, in person, by the kuffar.

Thus, do we have to allow the kuffar to do what they want, such as imprison our brothers and sisters for being Muslims, for wanting to participate in Jihad, for upholding Al-wala wal-bara?  Does this "implicit" covenant which some claim we have the the kuffar allow the kuffar to continuously insult our Deen or our Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)?

Yet it is known and accepted that whoever insults our Deen and our Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - be they Muslim or kaffir - has overstepped the limits of behaviour and become insolent and arrogant. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"And there shall be no blame for those who take revenge after they have suffered injustice. The way (of blame) is only for those rebellious ones who oppress others and who insolently walk on the earth: for these there will be a painful torment indeed." 42: 41-42 Interpretation of Meaning

"Allah does not forbid you from treating honourably those who do not act against you because of your Deen, or who have not driven you from your dwellings, for Allah loves those who act with honour. But Allah forbids you from treating with respect, or befriending, those who act against you because of your Deen, or have driven you from your dwellings or aided others to do this - for those of you who do this are without honour." 60: 8-9 Interpretation of Meaning

In this respect, there is the example of Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf, who was not a Muslim, mentioned by Bukhari, by Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) in as-Saarim al-Maslool and by ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyya (Rahimullah) in his Tafsir (9:12). This person was killed, by Muhammed bin Maslama, and others, for demeaning and insulting the Prophet and our Deen. As Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) says:


"It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi's blood...but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant." (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

"The first obligation after Eeman is the repulsion of the enemy who demeans and insults our Way of Life and who interferes in our affairs." (Refer to Al Ikhtiyaraat Al Fuqaha, and Fatawa Kubra 4, 608)



Furthermore, there is the example of the female servants of Abd Allah ibn Khat'l who were killed by order of the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) - refer to Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimullah): Al-Saarim al-Maslool - and the killing of Duraid ibn Al-Simma, who supported the enemy of the Muslims (refer to Al-Tamhid, 16:142).

Thus, we are led to ask questions such as: what, according to Deen Al-Islam, was the wrong of our brother Babar Ahmad, who was arrested by the kuffar, beaten, insulted, and who has been imprisoned by the kuffar for over two years? What, according to Deen Al-Islam, was the wrong of our brothers who were arrested and are now in prison for demonstrating against those who has insulted our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? What was the wrong, according to Deen Al-Islam, of our sister in Dewsbury who was suspended from her job for refusing to remove her veil?

We have to ask: what do the actions of a kaffir like John Reid mean when he asks Muslims to spy on their brothers and sisters and pass information to the kuffar? What do the actions of a kaffir like Ruth Kelly mean when she and other officials like her reward with money and honours those Muslims who ally themselves with the kuffar against their brothers and sisters, and who imitate the kuffar by accepting the values of the kuffar, in clear defiance of Shariah?

We have to ask: what do the actions of the kuffar, in Afghanistan and Iraq, prove? For they have invaded and occupied Muslim lands; and they have insulted, humiliated, killed and imprisoned our brothers and sisters. In many instances, the kuffar there and elsewhere have tortured our brothers and sisters and insulted our Deen and our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

We have to ask: what do all these things, and the other things like them, mean for Muslims, residing in Dar al-Harb? Do we accept that the kuffar are at war with the Muslims who refuse to imitate the kuffar, and who refuse to abandon Deen Al-Islam for the ways and values of the kuffar? Or do we accept that the kuffar are only at war with "Muslim extremists" who do not, according to the kuffar "represent Islam"? Do we agree with the kuffar that the moderate "Islam" the kuffar and their apostate lackeys have manufactured is right, and that we have a duty to meekly live in Dar al-Harb, and obey the kuffar and spy on our brothers and sisters, and let the kuffar invade our lands, and imprison, insult and torture and kill our brothers and sisters? Do we have a duty to accept what the kuffar say, and allow anyone to insult or Deen, insult our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), and let them interfere in our affairs? Do we have any honourable duty at all toward our brothers and sisters? Or only the duty that the kuffar will allow us to do while they are free to do what they want, anywhere in the world?


Are we secure in the lands of Dar al-Harb? Can we now live according to Deen Al-Islam - or must we live according to how the kuffar say we must live? Also, if there was a covenant between us and the kuffar, have the kuffar broken this by what they have done and are doing: by their treachery, their dishonour, their deceit, their actions toward us? Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"If you expect dishonesty from any people, throw back their covenant at them, for Allah dislikes dishonesty." 8: 58 Interpretation of Meaning


Thus, we have to ask: even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is such a covenant between Muslims, who reside the lands of the kuffar, and the kuffar, then we surely we cannot continue to honour a covenant if the kuffar themselves do not honour it?




Extracts From A Debate Regarding the Covenant of Security



QUOTE
the fact is that the Muslims living in the UK are generally in a state of security. Those who do not have that security have no covenant but that does not affect the individual covenant of the rest of the Muslims.


(Abdul-Aziz reply:) Assalam Alaikum

Are we really living in a state of security? We live in a condition of surveillance, where our movements, our communications, are monitored, and where we have to be careful what we do, say or write lest we attract the displeasure of the kuffar who will arrest us.

For many Muslims in a place like Britain, there is a fear of being the object of a "dawn-raid". I asked - what was the error, according to Deen Al-Islam - of our brother Barbar Ahmad? What was the error of our brothers who demonstrated against those who insulted the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)? Do we have to wait until we are arrested to say that a covenant no longer exists?

You write of our obligations regarding the covenant, but what about the obligations of the kuffar? As I mentioned, we must honour a covenant, if one exists - but we surely cannot continue to honour this if the kuffar do not honour this.

Are we obliged to honour something that they themselves are unaware of, or do not concern themselves with, or do not honour even if they are aware of this?

It seems as if some are inclining toward the view that we have an individual covenant with the kuffar by virtue of residence or a Visa - even though the kuffar are not aware of this covenant and we have not spoken to any kaffir about this or obtained their personal pledge to honour this covenant - which covenant we have to honour, until such a time as the kuffar directly attack us, as an individual, or arrest us. Which amounts to saying that we have obligations, but the kuffar have little or none, and do not have to know about this covenant or give us, on an individual basis, any pledge to honour this covenant.


the covenant IS individual contract and is binding even if it was a customary covenant, the ulemaa of the salaf spoke about a covenant being binding even if all they said was "welcome", without to detail a pledge to honour the covenant explicitly.

Akhi,

The important point is that any covenant (agreement) has two parties. How can there be an agreement where one party, the Muslim, has to abide by certain conditions, and where the other party, the kuffar, do not have to abide by anything or do not even have to know that there is such an unstated, implied, agreement?

There has to be some terms which the other side, the other party, have to accept, or are deemed to have accepted, by the Muslims. If these terms are violated, then the agreement, the covenant, is no longer valid.

As stated by Sheikh Hummoud bin Uqla al-Shu'aybi (Rahimullah): "Treaties and covenants necessitate that both parties comply [with them]. And if they do not so comply, then they are broken." (Clarification of What Occurred in Amerika)

The question therefore arises as to what are the terms of such implied, unacknowledged (by the kuffar) agreements which we are deemed to have, on an individual basis, with the kuffar through residence or entry into their lands?

If we know these terms, then we know when the kuffar have broken these individual covenants/agreements.


the terms are that neither party will violate the others sanctity in any life or wealth. indeed if the kuffar betray your covenant then it is invalidated and you are no longer bound by it but if they give release you and give you security again after that, then it is binding upon you, that is what was mentioned by Imam Shafi'i, ibn Hazm, Imam Ahmed, Qadi Iyaad, Imam Shaybaani etc.

The covenant of a muslim entering the lands of the kuffar is an individual one and will not be violated by fighting between those kuffar and OTHER people, that was mentioned by imam Shafi'i in Kitab ul Umm and these matters are agreed upon.

the reality in the UK may be that large sections of the community are in fitnah and have no covenant, but if they affirm a new covenant (even customary one which is also agreed upon), then it is binding upon them.


Jazakallahu khayran for the reply.

However, my question still remains as to the nature of the covenant - it is surely impossible to have an agreement, a covenant, between two parties when one party is not aware of such an agreement and no terms for such an agreement have been agreed between the two parties.

That is, for there to be any agreement, any covenant, there must be consent between the two parties - if there is not, then by definition it is not an agreement, not a covenant.

As I stated, you cannot have an agreement, a covenant, between two people if one of these people does not even know about the agreement and has not given their assent to it.

You cannot have an implied agreement - an implied covenant - of which the kuffar are unaware, but which the Muslims have to abide by. This seems to be the view that some Muslims are inclining toward.

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"If they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your Deen, then fight them for you are no longer bound by your covenant." 9:12 Interpretation of meaning

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala clearly states that here that a covenant means an oath - that is, people have personally pledged to abide by an agreement. There are many more such examples which could be given as to the nature of a covenant.

Thus, when speaking or writing about an agreement, a covenant, we are surely speaking and writing about two parties giving their assent to such an agreement. We are not - or rather should not - be speaking and writing about assuming the kuffar have given their assent to something they do not even know about on the personal level.


it is not unknown to the kuffar, the fact that they allow you to enter without to attack you or take your wealth, they have agreed to live beside you without fighting you. If you betray that, it is ghadr whether or not there is an explicit covenant.


Akhi,

This is the important issue - you are re-stating the assumption that has been made by someone that there is an implicit, unspoken, agreement (covenant) with the kuffar in such circumstances.

I incline toward the view that this is incorrect because a covenant by its very nature means an explicit agreement which is made between two people (Muslim and kaffir) or between two parties, one of whom represents the Muslims, or some Muslims, and one of whom is some representative of the kuffar. An explicit agreement means that the terms and conditions are known to, and accepted by, both parties. They can be spoken or written, or both - but they have to be known, understood and accepted, by both parties, for there to be covenant in the first place.

You are stating that in the assumed implicit agreement, the kuffar do not make known the terms and conditions. So how can they be agreed to by a Muslim? Also, you are stating that the kuffar do not necessarily know about the agreement - so how can we make an agreement with someone who does not know we are making an agreement?

Consider the example of obtaining and using a Visa to enter the lands of the kuffar. It has been suggested that this is an acceptance of a covenant of security between us and the kuffar. How can that be when we do not know the conditions of this covenant, and when there is no kaffir to whom we can give our agreement in person and who can give their agreement on behalf of the kuffar?

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says many times that a covenant and an oath go together - as ibn Kathir makes quite clear in his Tafsir (16:91). Therefore we can surely conclude that a covenant by its very nature is an explicit agreement, not an implied one, and certainly not one which the kuffar do not know about or which does not give the kuffar any obligations at all.

A covenant means that both sides have duties and obligations - such an implicit covenant as has been suggested means we have duties and obligations and the kuffar have none.

All the evidences you gave can be related to such explicit covenants as I have outlined.



There is also the issue - which has not been addressed so far - of what constituted the breaking of a covenant we might have with the kuffar. Let us suppose we do have such a covenant, for whatever reason and by whatever means. What do the kuffar have to do to violate that covenant? Do they have to arrest us? Attack us, in person? Or do they violate it when they abuse Deen Al-Islam and insult the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) or when they imprison our brothers and sisters; invade our lands, and kill our brothers and sisters? Do we have an obligation to defend Deen Al-Islam, our lands, and our brothers and sisters?

It is well-known for instance that as Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) said in relation to Ka'b bin Al-Ashraf : "It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi's blood...but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant." (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

This can and has been taken to mean that there is no 'aqd amaan for the person who insults the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) be they kaffir or Muslim. The same principle applies to the kuffar who invade our lands - by that action they violate whatever covenant exists.

That is, even though we may have an individual covenant, the generality of dishonour, treachery and abuse by the kuffar can nullify that covenant, for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"If you expect dishonesty from any people, throw back their covenant at them, for Allah dislikes dishonesty." 8: 58 Interpretation of Meaning



that is the explicit covenant, we are agreed about that. but the existence of an implicit one in the shari'ah is agreed upon among the ulemaa of the salaf, call it a different name if you like but it still exists.


Akhi, the fundamental fact remains - there cannot be an assumed implicit covenant which does not involve a spoken or written agreement between the two parties involved.

We cannot and should not assume that there is any covenant - there is only a covenant, an agreement, if there is or has been an open agreement made between two individuals. That is, that the two individuals know there is an agreement and the terms and conditions of that agreement have been made clear and explicit. There has to be some exchange of words - something said, or written, or both. This a fundamental principle of Shariah.

Shariah does not deal with assumptions, or presumptions. It deals only with what is said or done or both. This makes it quite different from - and superior to - the manufactured law of the kuffar, which deals in abstractions and assumptions. Thus, there is not any such thing in Shariah as "intent" or "inciting" - features of modern kaffir laws. This is clear if we consider, for example, a fundamental text such as Al-Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas al-Asbahi or Kitab al-Mabsut by Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi. The fundamental principles were upheld until the fall of the Ottoman Khilafah, where there was an attempt to codify the principles relating to "civil law" in a way similar to law canons of the kuffar, in "Majallah al-Ahkam i-Adilya".

Furthermore, and importantly, Shariah deals with individuals - with disputes or agreements between individuals. An individual must make a case against another individual - there is no such thing as some "State official" or some "State-appointed organization" who or which bring some prosecution in "the name of some State or in the anem of some government". Transgression in Shariah is against an individual, or against Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala - it involves in going beyond the limits, the bounds (hudood) that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala has set. This also makes it very different from - and superior to - kaffir so-called "justice". Shariah is human, honourable and thus civilized, whereas the abstract laws of the kuffar are not.

The adillah you refer to in this matter concern such open and direct agreements.


QUOTE
second of all, the kuffar are aware of the implied agreement just as we are,


My apologies for being so direct: but no they are not, in the case of these assumed, unspoken, unwritten, covenants that you are speaking about, for reasons I have explained previously and shall explain.

QUOTE
the reality of the VISA and asylum is one of an agreement to permit the person to enter or live in or travel through the country safely, it is one of hte most explicit forms of covenant of security.


I incline toward the view that this is incorrect. What you are stating is a new principle which is based on several assumptions. One assumption is that such a Visa is a covenant according to Shariah - but this cannot be, since a Shariah covenant means a spoken or written agreement which is agreed to by both sides in the presence of each other, where oaths, or something similar, are given, to uphold this agreement. That is, the terms and conditions are explicit and known and agreed to, person to person. This does not happen when one goes to obtain a Visa or uses that Visa. A Visa is simply an impersonal official document which gives permission to travel and reside in a place for a certain period of time - there is nothing whatsoever in any Visa application that states or requires you to agree to refrain from certain activities.


These days, you can get a Visa by post - and never see or speak to any representative of that country you desire to enter. All you have to do (usually) is state whether your trip is for tourism (personal) or for business.

There is also nothing whatsoever in the Visa which gives any terms or conditions about general security or activities, or whatever, or about the duties and obligations the kuffar have toward us - that is, what they themselves pledge to uphold in relation to us. Again, assumptions are being made that such things are "implicit". Well, they are not.

Until they are explicit - and until we give a personal agreement to abide by them - and until the duties and obligations of the kuffar toward us are explained in detail, there cannot be a Shariah covenant by such things.

QUOTE
but the individual covenant is not on behalf of the entire Ummah, it is between the kuffar and the individual, it is still binding upon him even if they betrayed other muslim individuals.

I incline toward the view that this in incorrect. As I stated, even if we assume we have an individual covenant with the kuffar, then this can be violated by the kuffar if the kuffar do certain things. Why?

Because we have duties and obligations toward our brothers and sisters - and toward Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam). These duties come before our own welfare, our own desires, our own life. Thus, if the kuffar with whom we might have a covenant act in a treacherous, dishonourable, dishonest way toward our brothers or sisters, then they have violated that covenant by such actions.

That is, their general actions can and do violate an individual covenant. To say or suggest otherwise is to deny one of the fundamental principles of Deen Al-Islam. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:


"The believers are as one family." 49:10 Interpretation of Meaning


Also, it was narrated by Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "Whoever helps his brother, then Allah will help him; whoever saves his brother from distress, Allah will save from distress, and whoever shields his brother, Allah will shield him." Bukhari: Vol 3, Book 43, 622


It was narrated from Yahya from Malik from Abu'z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) said, "Do not turn away from each other - rather, as slaves of Allah, be brothers." Malik, Muwatta: Book 47, Number 47, 4.15


That is, as Muslims we are not directed to be selfish - to concern ourselves only with what happens to us. The dishonour of one of our brothers and sisters is our dishonour whether that Muslim lives where we reside or whether they reside elsewhere. For we do not recognize the sanctity of the borders of the kuffar - we only recognize Muslim and Kaffir; only Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. An insult by someone against the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) is an insult against us, and such insults against the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) also violate whatever covenant we may have with the kuffar who make or who allow such insults, as the quote I gave from Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) shows.

This unity, this brotherhood of feeling and of deeds, is one of beauties, the strengths - Alhamdulillah - of Deen Al-Islam.

QUOTE
Please try to appreciate the depth of this topic,

With respect, Akhi, I am fully aware of the nature of this important issue - but the underlying principles are quite simple. What has made the matter seem confusing is that there has been an attempt to impose assumptions about covenants in an attempt to not offend the kuffar or to appear to be not threatening to the kuffar - to strive to give the appearance that because we have some kind of assumed, implied, covenant to them, we cannot and should not attack them in Dar al-Harb.

InshaAllah, I shall go into more detail soon, and may Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our mistakes and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.


brother, the fundamental fact as you called it is not a fact and rather the opposite is true and agreed upon by the ulemaa of the salaf and we have been ordered to follow and not to innovate.

Jazakallahu khayran for the reply.


Akhi, as I understand it, the view you are expounding regarding Amaan is that of Sheikh Abdul-Qadir Abdul-Aziz and Sheikh Nasar ibn Hamad Al-Fahd, and they regard such things as a Visa as a contract of Amaan by Urf (or custom) since according to them the basis for this contract is that the kuffar honour the life and the wealth of the Muslim while he dwells in the lands of the kuffar.

This has been taken further, and it has also been stated that this applies to obtaining a ticket to board an aeroplane - that such a ticket is an implied covenant of security. (This claim was made by Issam Al-Din Darablah, for which see the rather dubious London-based newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, edition of September 1, 2006 CE.)

What is involved here, according to my understanding, is an assumption about an implied contract - that they are stating that this implied contract does not require what a normal Shariah contract does, which is that two parties make an agreement in person, with both being aware of the terms and conditions of that contract. This does seem to involve a new understanding of contracts, of Amaan.

The Ayat you quote is not evidence of this/your position - for as I stated in an earlier reply, we are duty bound to honour a covenant, if we have a covenant. There is no dispute about that. My argument is that this seemingly new implied contract is not a covenant, therefore we are not bound by a covenant of Amaan if we purchase an airline ticket or acquire a Visa or similar things.

As far as I can see, the objections I have raised have not been answered. Thus, if we consider what Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah says: "The covenant (ahd) is such that if one of the two who have signed it does not fulfil what was agreed upon, then that contract is void, violated, with the other person who signed it able to cast it aside." Ahkam Ahl Ath-Thimmah, 3, 1354

Here again we have a Shariah understanding of a contract, as we do for instance when Sheikh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn 'Abd al-Wahhaab (Rahimullah) mentions Amaan in Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fee al-Ajwibah an-Najdiyyah. That is, it involves people communicating directly with each other, and knowing what their duties and obligations are.

QUOTE
as for the mixing between individual covenants and collective covenants, again it is established in the shari'ah and indeed in the Qur'an that your covenant is not necessarily violated by an attack on other muslims.


This is obscuring the issue above about the nature of implied contracts/covenants/agreements. But the question here is: what is a collective covenant, today, given that there is no Dar al-Islam, and no Khalifah? Is there even such a thing? Who has such authority?

The issue really is the validity or otherwise of this new implied covenant, and I stated that even if, for the sake of argument, we have an individual covenant of Amaan with the kuffar, then the kuffar break this when they invade our lands; dishonour, humiliate, torture and kill our brothers and sisters, or even if they insult our Deen and our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam).

What you seem to be implying is that if we have this implied covenant, which is individual, we must abide by it whatever the kuffar do to our brothers and sisters, since this implied covenant can only be violated if the kuffar personally attack us, or arrest us. That is, it gives the kuffar hardly any duties or obligations toward Deen Al-Islam or toward the Muslims - it deals only with each individual Muslim. Such a covenant by its very nature is surely dishonourable and unfair since it gives the kuffar the right to insult our Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), insult our Deen, kill and tortue our brothers and sisters, and invade our lands without us being able to do anything about it. That is, it ties our hands. I am sure InshaAllah that no Muslim would enter into such a contract were these unfair conditions explained to them. But they have not been explained to them, as far I can see, which to put it bluntly from a Shariah point of view makes it no contract at all.

My argument is that this type of contract is not correct - since it is accepted that if a kaffir insults our Deen or the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) then they are deemed that this very act breaks whatever covenant they may have with Muslims.

I give again what Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) says:

"It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi's blood...but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant." (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

Furthermore, it is not the leaders of the kuffar who are held accountable, but the kuffar themselves, as is shown by the killing, on the orders of the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), of hundreds of Banu Quraytath even though it was only the leaders who broke the covenant, as has been mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Maad.


However, it does seem that in this particular matter of implied covenants, we shall have to agree to disagree, but please know that I am not innovating anything, just striving InshaAllah to clarify what seems to be a new assumption regarding Shariah contracts, and I am not alone in having reservations about this new assumption.


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our mistakes and may He guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.
i didn't and am not quoting any of those scholars for my position though i certainly agree with the position of Sheikh Naasir Al Fahd and Sheikh Abdul Qadir ibn Abdul Aziz and the many other scholars like them. I am quoting the fatwa and ijmaa' mentioned by Imam Shafi'i, Imam ibn Hazm, Imam Ahmed, Imam Shaybaani, Imam Qadi Iyaad, Imam ibn Muflih and the others like them.


Akhi, the adilla you gave do not relate to this new use of a contract of Amaan. They relate to the customary Shariah contract. This new contract does not, according to the view I incline toward, meet the criteria for a Shariah contract as established by Quran and Sunnah. This new contract is that said to result from obtaining a Visa and similar things. This is a modern view about Amaan which has only been put forward in the last decade.

There is no dispute that a Shariah contract must be honoured.

You have failed to explain how this new implied contract such as a Visa meets the criteria of a Shariah contract, which Shariah contract involves two people agreeing, face to face, to terms they both understand and which have been made clear to them.

This new contract does not involve this - everything is said to be implied, and there does not even have to be someone from the kuffar present, in person, to explain the terms of this contract, and these terms have never been made clear, by the kuffar, or even accepted by any of the kuffar. All we have are assumptions by Muslims about what they believe the new contract of Amaan means for the kuffar.

In addition, the implied terms are unfair to the Muslims and do not give any obligations to the kuffar at all. Further, the conditions of this new contract do seem to allow the kuffar tot attack Deen Al-Islam and to insult the Prophet (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) without violating this new contract, which abrogates the understanding of the Salaf, which as I explained is that such things nullify and make void any covenants.
QUOTE
the existence of individual covenants that are not affected by the betrayal of the kuffar against OTHER people.


This is true of a Shariah contract - there is no dispute about this. But is this new contract of Amaan a Shariah contract? That is my point. I incline toward the view that it is not.

The Ayah relates to a Shariah contract , as do the adillah you gave.
QUOTE
as for "i am sure that no muslim would enter into such a contract ...", nobody is insisting that you do so, but the fact that he/she entered their lands and is living between them as a muslim secured from them, if he is the one to betray them, he is ghaddar

That would be true if it was a valid Shariah contract, but whether this new implied contract is a Shariah one is what is being disputed here.


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala forgive us for our mistakes and may He guide us to and keep us on the Right Path


this is not a new contract or new concept that the ulemaa of the salaf never mentioned, rather they spoke about it at length already and are agreed about it. i think you made the assumption that this type of covenant was only ever mentioned in the last decade but that is not true.


Akhi, with respect, the evidences you give refer to an explicit contract - where there is conversation between the two sides, and where the Muslim gives a verbal pledge, their word of honour.



Thus, to quote one evidence you gave: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, and he says to them “I am going to look for a wife” or “to study” or “for trading” or just to pass through the land to go somewhere else, it is agreed that it is a form of customary covenant.” [Al Maqsud]

That is - "he says to them..."


There are many such evidences, but they refer to an explicit contract which is made between two individuals with both individuals exchanging information about the matter.


This new contract does not require this exchange, or indeed any exchange - everything is assumed or implied. The Muslim does not even speak to any kaffir - they do not give their word of honour. It is just assumed that this piece of paper is a contract, with the conditions being implied, and not stated anywhere or by anyone.

That is, even these bits of kaffir paper do not state what has been assumed by some Muslims. Everything is being assumed by the Muslim, with no kaffir making any statement regarding their obligations, or pledging anything. Also, most Muslims are not making a direct pledge either - it is just being assumed that getting such a piece of paper is a pledge, by them.


QUOTE
any form of VISA whether visitor, transit, student, business, let alone settlement is a binding customary covenant


I incline to the view that this is not correct - that it is not a customary Shariah covenant which still requires words said or written and still requires two people to agree, in person.

It cannot be done "at a distance" or just by assuming some piece of paper contains some conditions, which they do not. Neither can it be done by assuming that a piece of paper implies some conditions - we Muslims are the only ones here making assumptions about such a piece of paper having implied conditions; the kuffar are not.


Akhi, I do think we shall have to finally agree to disagree on this particulat subject.


May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.



Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
21 Muharram 1428



Notes:

(1) This discussion arose from issues discussed by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an essay of his entitled Al Aqd Al Amaan.