Chapter 36

Following the precedent of Ubaydah and Umar (may Allah be pleased with them) (1), they argued that Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) expelled the Ahl al-Dhimmah (non-Muslim subjects) from the Hijaz, causing some to settle in the Levant (al-Sham) and others in Kufa. Similarly, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) expelled a group who then settled in Khaybar. This suggests that the prohibition specifically refers to the Hijaz and nothing else. ¶

Second View: The opinion of those who maintain that it is not permissible for any polytheist (mushrik) to reside in the Arabian Peninsula once it has entered into Islam. The Arabian Peninsula (Jazirat al-Arab) is the territory defined by al-Khalil ibn Ahmad and al-Asma'i, and their definition does not differ from what is known to the scholars of this field in our present era, except for the variation in terminology from 'Jazirat al-Arab' to 'Shibh al-Jazira al-Arabiyya' (the Arabian Peninsula). Therefore, according to this view, it is not permissible for a polytheist to reside in the Arabian Peninsula. The arguments for this position are as follows: ¶

1. The mutawatir (widely transmitted) hadiths which indicate that it is not permissible for a polytheist to reside in the Peninsula, nor for two religions to coexist therein after the advent of Islam; these hadiths, with their various narrations, have already been presented. ¶

2. These hadiths, as evidenced by their chains of narration, were among the final injunctions given by the Prophet ﷺ to this Ummah. Consequently, no subsequent hadiths have emerged that could abrogate their implementation or restrict their meaning. ¶

3. If the specification of the Hijaz from the Arabian Peninsula is for the sake of the welfare of the Ummah, then the welfare in expelling them from the entire Arabian Peninsula is much stronger and more obligatory. ¶

4. If applying the term 'Jazira' (Peninsula) to the Hijaz is considered valid metaphorically—by mentioning the whole and intending the part—then this is countered by the reverse argument: that the intention behind [the term] Hijaz is the entire Peninsula... ¶

Among the Arabs, it is common to use the term for a part to intend the whole. Therefore, preferring one of the two metaphorical interpretations requires evidence, and there is no evidence to favor one over the other. ¶

5. The report prohibiting (the presence of non-Muslims) in the Arabian Peninsula contains an addition that did not alter the ruling of the report specific to the Hejaz; such an addition is acceptable in such cases. ¶

6. Deducing the reason (illah) for the regulation in areas outside the Hejaz as being 'public interest' (maslaha) is a derivative of the established ruling. Inferred rulings are only taken from the original ruling after its establishment. The evidence indicates the negation of the presence of polytheists in both the Hejaz and the Arabian Peninsula collectively, as in the Hadith of Muslim (1) and the Hadith, 'Two religions shall not remain in the Arabian Peninsula.' Thus, the exception of areas outside the Hejaz contradicts the explicit text stating that the reason is the abhorrence of two religions coexisting in one place. Consequently, the requirements of analogy (qiyas) dictate that even if we were to assume the text only applied to their expulsion from the Hejaz, it would be mandatory by analogy to include the rest of the Arabian Peninsula for the same reason. This is especially true since the authentic text explicitly mandates the expulsion of every polytheist from the Arabian Peninsula. ¶

7. The Hadith cited by those who argue for expulsion only from the Hejaz, due to the mention of the word 'Hejaz,' also contains the command to expel them from Najran, as stated in the same Hadith; yet Najran is not part of the Hejaz. If the word 'Hejaz' were to restrict the word 'Peninsula' (Jazeera) exclusively, or signify that 'Arabian Peninsula' meant only the Hejaz, this would involve neglecting one part of the Hadith while acting upon another, which is invalid. ¶

8. The furthest extent of the Hadith of Abu Ubaidah, in which the term 'people of the Hejaz' is explicitly used, is that its implied meaning (mafhum) contradicts the explicit wording (mantuq) of the Hadith of Ibn Abbas, which explicitly uses the term 'Arabian Peninsula.' An implied meaning is not strong enough to oppose an explicit text, let alone be preferred over it (2). ¶

Based on the preceding discussion regarding the Haram, the Hijaz, and the Arabian Peninsula, my firm conclusion is that they should be treated as follows: ¶

1. The entire area of the Haram: It is not permissible for any polytheist (mushrik) to enter it, whether they are a traveler or a resident, due to the aforementioned textual evidence. I consider the position held by the Hanafis—that temporary entry into the Haram (excluding the Masjid al-Haram) is permissible—to be weak, because their position is based on ijtihad, and there is no room for ijtihad in the presence of an explicit text (nass). ¶

2. The entire region of the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula: It is permissible for dhimmis and musta’mins (those granted safe conduct) to enter the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula temporarily. In the time of Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), Christians used to trade in Medina, and for any trader who arrived, a specific period was set, after which they were required to leave the city. This is what the Hanbalis, Shafi’is, and Zaydis have stated. Perhaps this does not contradict the literal meaning of the hadiths that forbid entry into the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula, if these hadiths are interpreted as referring to permanent residency, rather than passing through or residing temporarily for a specific task. ¶

Therefore, I agree with those who state that it is not permissible to authorize permanent residency in the Hijaz and the Arabian Peninsula for non-Muslims, in accordance with the apparent meaning of the hadiths on this matter. As for the permission granted to the dhimmis to reside in Yemen, the Sawad of Iraq, and the Levant, that was based on the ijtihad of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) and was done temporarily for a public interest they perceived at the time. It does not mean that this was their final decision on the matter, or that they intended to make it a permanent settlement. It is narrated by Imam Ahmad that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz ordered his deputy in Sana'a to demolish all churches in Yemen, and he demolished them in Sana'a and other cities. Harun al-Rashid did the same when he ordered the destruction of those existing in the Sawad of Baghdad, as did al-Mutawakkil, who sought a fatwa from the scholars on the matter. ¶

Then he sent their fatwa to Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal to seek his approval regarding the matter, and he responded with approval for the demolition of the churches in the Sawad of Iraq(1). ¶

Therefore, one of the grievous errors committed by contemporary states is granting mushrikin (polytheists) of all types permission for permanent residence in the countries of the Arabian Peninsula. This is done by granting the citizenship of these states to the dregs of the Jews, Christians, and idolaters, while many callers to Allah (du'at) find no refuge or cave to seek shelter in, or to protect themselves from the tyranny of the despots and the persecution of the oppressors. Is the orchard forbidden for its nightingales, but lawful for birds of every other kind!! ¶

Fourth: The residence and permanent settlement of mushrikin outside the Arabian Peninsula: ¶

The majority of scholars hold the view that it is permissible for the Ahl al-Dhimmah (protected people) to reside permanently outside the borders of the Arabian Peninsula within the Dar al-Islam, provided they adhere to the conditions of the Ahl al-Dhimmah stipulated by the Messenger of Allah ﷺ and implemented by his Companions, such that no harm results from them to the interests of Islam and the Muslims. Those granted safety (musta'minin) are also bound by this due to their covenant of security ('ahd al-aman). Although some Islamic scholars hold the view that every mushrik should be expelled from any land conquered by Muslims by force, provided there is no pressing necessity or vital need for their presence, they argue that this is not exclusive to the Arabian Peninsula. They state that the Prophet ﷺ specified it because it was the only territory under Muslim control at the time of his passing. This is the opinion of Imam al-Tabari(2). ¶

The more sound view is that, excluding the Arabian Peninsula and the Haram, the matter returns to the discretion of the Imam and the 'Ahl al-Hall wal-'Aqd' (those who loose and bind) of the Ummah, and what the Siyasa Shar'iyya (Islamic political governance) and the interests of the Ummah dictate regarding the retention or expulsion of the Ahl al-Dhimmah and those under covenant, based on prioritizing the most beneficial of the two options for the sake of Islam and the Muslims. ¶

(1) See: Sharh al-Shurut al-'Umariyya, authored by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, edited by Subhi al-Salih, pp. 29-30. (2) See: Fath al-Bari, Vol. 6, pp. 270-272. ¶

However, there is a vast gulf between what exists and what ought to be. Missionary organizations have invaded most Islamic countries under both overt and covert names, setting their sights on removing Muslims from Islam. If we move beyond those Islamic countries with high Muslim population density and a minority of non-Muslims, such as Egypt, Indonesia, and Pakistan, to countries that were originally one hundred percent Muslim and inhabited by only a few non-Muslims, such as the Gulf states, we find (54) fifty-four missionary missions—British and American. In Kuwait, there is a Council of Churches for the countries of the region, despite the fact that the location of Kuwait and other Gulf states falls within the concept of the Arabian Peninsula, which is encompassed by the prohibition laid down by the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) regarding the settlement of polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula. The percentage of non-Muslims in the Gulf states has reached 30% relative to Muslims—that is, nearly one million disbelieving polytheists—given that the total population of the Gulf states is (3,146,078) and the proportion of non-Muslims among them is equivalent to one-third, according to detailed statistics published by the Kuwaiti magazine 'Al-Mujtama'. ¶

Is this high percentage of non-Muslims in the best interest of Islam and the Muslims? And does such an action please the Lord of the Worlds, at a time when millions of Muslims are dying of poverty, need, and deprivation? ¶

From what has been stated, the Muslim realizes the gravity of our current era, in which hundreds of thousands of people of disbelief and misguidance are being brought in and distributed throughout various Islamic lands. This is a matter of great danger for two reasons. ¶

The first reason: Such absolute cooperation with the disbelievers is a sin for which God will hold us accountable, and filling Islamic lands with disbelievers is an act contrary to what God commanded regarding the expulsion of polytheists from the Arabian Peninsula. Most of those who wander freely in our lands... ¶

For Muslims, their existence is unjustifiable from an Islamic perspective, as they could be replaced by millions of unemployed Muslims in the East and West who, collectively, possess self-sufficiency in most fields of work and the necessities of life. ¶

However, due to the allegiance of many rulers in Islamic lands to the disbelievers, they have begun to compete in bringing in the disbelievers and taking them as confidants instead of the believers. In fact, their companions, intimate friends, trusted advisors, and keepers of secrets are often the disbelievers or those who resemble them. ¶

This is sufficient proof to condemn those officials and [evidence of] their allegiance to and love for the enemies of Allah, as it has been stated in the authentic hadith: 'A person will be with those whom he loves' (1). ¶

The second aspect – The lands of the Muslims, especially the Arabian Peninsula, are targeted more than any other region by the enemies of Islam for two reasons: ¶

1. It is the fountainhead of Islam and the place from which the light dawned that dispelled the darkness of ignorance and oppression in the entire world. Therefore, the enemies fear that the sun of Islam might rise again, ending their pitch-black night, in the darkness of which they find all the justifications for enslaving and dominating the Muslims. ¶

Consequently, they strive day and night to besiege the Islamic movement everywhere and strike it before it gains strength, so that Islam may never rise again. ¶

2. Allah has bestowed upon the countries of the Peninsula His manifest and hidden blessings, the extent of which none knows but Him, and empowered them to hold the key to illuminating the entire world. However, they have not exercised their leadership role as they should have in bridging the power of energy and the power and greatness of the Message, making one complementary to the other. Instead, they have been stripped of both at the cheapest of prices. ¶

(1) Narrated by Muslim. See: Sahih Muslim, Vol. 4, p. 2032 (Book of Virtues and Maintaining Ties of Kinship), Hadith No. (2641). ¶

A questioner might ask: What is the way out of the painful reality in which we live? ¶

The answer, as I believe, is that we must follow these paths: ¶

First: Serious cooperation with sincere, monotheistic Muslims who represent the truth and essence of Islam, not with pseudo-Muslims, nor with governments that work against Islam and the Muslims. ¶

It is profound ignorance for an individual, group, or state to believe that it is possible to buy people's loyalty and affection with money and material benefits. Even if this occurs in some temporary appearances, the loyalty of one who loves you for an interest ends with the loss of that interest, turning into enmity. Therefore, we often see friendship turn into hostility among many individuals, groups, and states, and sometimes the opposite occurs due to the lack of a pre-existing standard based on religion and sound creed to govern those relationships. Affection for the sake of Allah and brotherhood in His path is more upright and enduring; hence the Almighty said: 'If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have brought their hearts together; but Allah brought them together. Indeed, He is Exalted in Might and Wise' (Surah Al-Anfal: 63). ¶

Allah has commanded cooperation with Muslims and the relief of their distress. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: 'Whoever relieves a Muslim of a distress, Allah will relieve him of a distress from the distresses of the Day of Resurrection.' Is it not better to prepare honorable work based on brotherhood in Allah for our brothers in the East and the West, instead of leaving them to fall into the arms of the advocates of disbelief, Vatican brokers, and Crusader associations, while the stomachs of the disbelievers are becoming bloated with the resources of the Muslims, both inside and outside Muslim lands? ¶

It is incumbent upon the upright rulers of the Muslims not to employ a kafir (disbeliever) if they can find a Muslim who is capable of performing the same task. Bringing disbelievers into the lands of Islam, especially the Arabian Peninsula, is an act of disobedience to Allah and His Messenger, and a contradiction of the methodology of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, as has been previously explained (1). ¶

Secondly, the vast Islamic society possesses technical expertise and scientific capabilities that would allow Muslims to be self-sufficient in most professions and sciences, making the need for disbelievers rare or non-existent. But who is there to pay attention to this and strive to implement it in the reality of the Muslims? Many states have opened their doors wide for the entry of disbelievers through various methods and diverse means, until the lands of the Muslims have been filled with a sweeping tide of these disbelievers—both men and women. Consequently, one can hardly see a Muslim among them except rarely, and the Muslim has become a stranger in his own land. So much so that when one of us enters some of our commercial centers, he finds everything dyed in the hue of the disbelievers, with both the sellers and buyers being disbelievers, as if the shop were in London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, or Beijing, rather than in a city of the Muslims. Indeed, the disbelievers, especially the Christians among them, are focusing these days on migrating to Islamic countries to corrupt them and attempt to convert Muslims therein to Christianity. ¶

They even held a church conference in America to convert Muslims in the state of Colorado, where forty research papers were discussed regarding plans for proselytization and programs of Christianization in Islamic countries. They adopted several decisions and recommendations, the most important of which, regarding this subject, was their statement: 'It is necessary to exert sufficient attention and focus strongly on planting Christian communities in the heart of the Islamic world' (2). ¶

(1) See pp. 660-666 of this treatise. (2) See Al-Mujtama' (Kuwait), Issue 525, dated 16/6/1401 AH, p. 30. ¶

Should we grant them the opportunity they so eagerly aspire to achieve? Islam does not fear the presence of non-Muslims in the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) if the Muslims are steadfast in their Islam, acting upon its true essence. However, empowering the disbelievers (kuffar) within Muslim lands at a time when Muslims live without an identity or creed connecting them to true Islam is a betrayal, an allegiance to the enemies of Allah and His Messenger, and a war against Islam and the Muslims. Do those who gamble with their fate and the fate of their Ummah toward the abyss realize this danger, especially after history has proven that the heart of the Arabian Peninsula was the most secure of all Islamic lands due to the scarcity of the presence of disbelievers in ancient times? ¶

Third: Working to exclude hypocrites (munafiqin) and apostates (murtadin)—such as communists, Baathists, and their likes—from the centers of guidance and the reins of authority in the Islamic Ummah. Whoever shows signs of hypocrisy, his hypocrisy should be confined to his heart (if not manifested), and whoever shows signs of apostasy by embracing disbelief-based ideologies, the law of Allah should be implemented upon him, for all these are malicious conduits for the enemies of Islam and a ladder for the entry of the kuffar into Muslim lands to desecrate their sanctity. ¶

Fourth: Working to revive the Islamic Dawah, and unleashing the hands of the callers to Allah to preach with full freedom and activity to create a righteous alternative, replacing the half-hearted Muslims and the hypocrites who are a burden upon themselves and their entire Ummah. ¶

(1) Michel Aflaq says: 'The Baath Party owes a debt to Marxism in its philosophical aspect and its socialist program.' (See: 'At-Tabshir wal-Isti'mar', p. 257). This is a testimony not to be taken lightly regarding the kufr (disbelief) of anyone who follows the path of Baathist parties or joins and aligns with them, especially since it is a testimony issued by the founder of the Baath parties in Syria and Iraq. Do those who are deceived realize that there is no contradiction between the Baath Party and the religion of Islam? After the issuance of the testimony regarding their disbelief from their leader who taught them disbelief, Allah the Almighty says: '...witnessing against themselves with disbelief' (Surah At-Tawbah, verse 17). ¶

Someone might ask: What is the danger that threatens Muslims from the presence of disbelievers (kuffar) among them, and has anything occurred in the past that makes fearing them in the future necessary? Our response is what Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) stated: 'We have seen that Muslims who lived alongside Jews and Christians had weaker faith compared to those who lived among Muslims pure from shirk.' If this is what the Sheikh saw seven centuries ago, what would he say if he saw the state of those Muslim lands that host non-Muslim minorities, suffering from corruption, apostasy, and moral decay? Historical reality has proven that lands where non-Muslim minorities remained—such as Egypt, the Levant, and Iraq—preceded other Muslim lands in corruption; this is an observed and well-known fact. This does not mean that countries within the borders of the Arabian Peninsula are safe or pure, but they would appear at the end of the list after those regions, unless Allah encompasses everyone with His mercy. Another proof demonstrates that corruption increases where disbelievers are numerous; countries that were subjected to military colonialism after the collapse of the Islamic State were affected by corruption more severely than those that maintained a limited independence from the disbelievers in the Arabian Peninsula. Yet, with these experiences before us, we have neither taken heed nor learned a lesson. Indeed, the situation has reached the point where we export our children to them just as they export cattle to us, and we import disbelievers as we import other consumer goods. Consequently, most of our children were lost abroad, and the arriving disbelievers decimated most of the remainder within Muslim lands. There is no power nor strength except in Allah, the Most High, the Almighty. ¶

The Sixth Example: Transferring ownership to disbelievers of that which they might use as a place for disobedience to Allah. The fundamental principle is that no one among the polytheists (Mushrikin) is permitted to remain in the Abode of Islam (Dar al-Islam) except for the People of the Dhimma (protected subjects). As for idolaters and apostates, their remaining in the Abode of Islam is not valid, let alone granting them ownership of property. However, the Sharia ruling is one thing, and our contemporary reality is another. In our contemporary reality, there are no 'People of the Dhimma' in the conventional sense recognized by Muslim jurists. Therefore, what we are writing does not extend beyond the imagination of some educated individuals or the contents of books. As for the practical reality, there is a vast gulf between it and Islam, such that most Muslims do not even consider such Islamic issues. Yet, we are clarifying what Muslims ought to be if they truly desire Islam or wish to return to it. We state: The issue of the ownership of real estate by the People of the Dhimma in the Abode of Islam is a matter upon which jurists have differed, offering two views: one of permissibility and one of prohibition. ¶

First View: Many jurists of Basra held the opinion that it is permissible for a Muslim to sell land to a Dhimmi (non-Muslim citizen under Islamic protection). This was the view of Abu Hanifah and Abu Yusuf, and it is also narrated from al-Hasan ibn Salih and Abu Ubayd, and it is the school of thought of al-Thawri and al-Shafi'i (1). ¶

The argument for these scholars is an analogy comparing the sale of real estate, such as residences and farmlands, to the permissibility of selling livestock (al-sawa'im). However, this is an analogy with a discrepancy (qiyas ma' al-fariq), because the utility and existence of livestock are limited and they are prone to quick transfer and depletion, unlike real estate, whose essence and utility remain for a long, unlimited period. ¶

The second point: They argued that Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) granted the lands conquered by force in the Sawad of Kufa, Egypt, Syria, and Khorasan back to their original inhabitants after establishing their ownership through the Islamic state, and it was permissible for them to sell that land to Muslims. If they had not owned these lands by possession, it would not have been permissible for them to sell them (2). ¶

Second View: This is the position of Imam Malik and one of the two narrations from Ahmad, and it is the view of the general public of the Hijaz. It is also narrated from Ibn al-Qasim, and it is the view favored by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, that a Dhimmi should not be allowed to buy a Muslim's land in the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), whether residential or agricultural, because such a purchase causes harm to the Muslims. The fundamental principle is that the people of the Dhimma are to be maintained in their existing state without allowing them to overstep by seizing property or real estate in which the Muslims have established rights. Allah the Almighty says: 'And He caused you to inherit their land and their homes and their wealth and a land which you have not trodden' (3). How, then, after Allah has made us inheritors of their land, can we return it to them? For this reason, al-Shafi'i, Abu Ubayd, and a group of scholars favored this view. ¶

The position held by the companions of Imam Ahmad and the well-known view among the companions of Imam Malik is that the Ahl al-Dhimma (protected non-Muslim subjects) cannot be permitted to purchase or lease land from Muslims (1). They were permitted to reside in Dar al-Islam in exchange for Jizya only due to circumstantial necessity; and a ruling restricted by necessity is limited to the extent of that necessity and does not extend to everything. For this reason, the proponents of the second view—those who forbid the sale of a Muslim's land to a Dhimmi—responded to the arguments of the first group with the following points: ¶

a. The action of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) in consulting Mu'adh ibn Jabal (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding whether to distribute the conquered land among the victors or to impose Kharaj (land tax) upon it indicates that the occupiers did not possess full ownership of it at that time. Mu'adh advised him by saying: 'If you distribute it, a vast territory will fall into the hands of a few people, then they will perish and it will end up with a single man or woman. Then, people will come after them who will serve Islam significantly, yet they will find nothing (to inherit). So, look for a policy that accommodates both the earlier and later generations' (2). ¶

b. As for their selling land thereafter, it is probable that they converted to Islam, as was the case in the Sawad of Iraq, Egypt, the Levant, and Khurasan. Islam protects life and property, as stated in the Hadith: 'I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. If they do so, they have protected their blood and property from me, except for the rights due upon them, and their reckoning is with Allah' (3). ¶

Al-Bayhaqi reported that a woman from the people of Nahr al-Malik embraced Islam, and he said... ¶

Umar or the document of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) states: 'If you choose their land and they pay what is due on their land, then leave them and their land alone; otherwise, leave the path between the Muslims and their lands.' It is narrated from Abu Awn al-Thaqafi that when a person from the people of al-Sawad (the agriculturalists of Iraq) accepted Islam, Umar and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them both) would leave him with his land subject to its kharaj (land tax). It is also narrated that Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (may Allah have mercy on him) wrote to Abd al-Hamid ibn Abd al-Rahman—mentioning this—stating: 'There is no kharaj on those among the people of the land who accept Islam,' based on the Hadith: 'Whoever accepts Islam while in possession of something, it belongs to him.' Any sale that might occur from the Dhimmi, assuming it were to happen, could only be a sale of their share of the benefits derived from the land, not a sale of the land itself; thus, since this possibility exists, the argument [permitting such sales] is invalidated. ¶

The preferred opinion is that it is not permissible to sell real estate—such as dwellings, farms, and the like—to Dhimmis or other disbelievers, especially within the borders of the Arabian Peninsula, as this is prohibited by established texts as previously mentioned. This is because selling them real estate results in their permanent residence there, which contradicts the prohibition against the presence of polytheists in the Arabian Peninsula. Therefore, whoever permits or approves of polytheists owning real estate within the Arabian Peninsula is opposing what the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) commanded and is siding with the enemies of Islam. As for regions outside the Arabian Peninsula in Muslim lands, the prohibition on selling real estate to disbelievers is the view of the majority of scholars, including Imam Malik, the people of Medina, and Imam Ahmad. This is also the position taken by al-Tabari and deemed strongest by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah. Consequently, none of the Salaf (predecessors) established the right of pre-emption (shuf'ah) for a Dhimmi. ¶

And Imam Ahmad, in explaining this, stated that if we were to mandate the right of pre-emption (shuf'a) for a dhimmi in property owned by a Muslim, we would be forcing the Muslim to transfer ownership of his real estate to a dhimmi involuntarily, which contradicts the fundamental principles [of Shariah]. For this reason, Ahmad stipulated that if the seller is a Muslim and his partner is a dhimmi, the right of shuf'a does not apply to the latter. This is because shuf'a is fundamentally a right between two partners, and it belongs to those rights which are binding upon a Muslim toward another Muslim, such as accepting an invitation, visiting the sick, and the like; all of which, according to Ahmad, are specific to Muslims and do not extend to others. Abu Hanifa and some jurists of Basra held that selling real estate to dhimmis is permissible, albeit with karaha (dislike). We have already mentioned their arguments and the arguments of those who refuted them. The position I find most reassuring and preponderant is that it is not permissible to sell real estate to non-Muslims in the Dar al-Islam, as this serves to entrench their presence and ensure their permanence. It is better to restrict them so that they might embrace Islam, or for the Dar al-Islam to become restricted for them so that they might return to their own kind among the kuffar, as they would lack any ties to the land, such as houses or farms. It is regrettable that some Gulf states have granted citizenship to certain kuffar, thereby giving them the right to purchase and develop real estate. Furthermore, they have granted others loans to build luxurious homes, despite their high incomes, while impoverished Muslims reside in shacks and mud huts, despite their ancestral belonging to this faith and these lands. In Egypt and the Levant, kuffar are even prioritized over Muslims in the ownership of lands and housing, let alone being treated as equals; the Jews have exploited this. ¶

Through this method, they acquired most of the Palestinian lands before the start of the actual occupation. Even before the British Mandate, the Jews were able to acquire 650,000 dunams through cash purchases with the assistance of millionaires from the West. During the Mandate era, the Jews managed to obtain 2,075,000 dunams (1). This is the same method the Jews followed in Palestine, and it is the method they wish to repeat in the peace process and through openness toward Egypt and other neighboring states, in order to seize a foothold that would assist them in consolidating military conquest when the opportunity arises. ¶

Therefore, it is the duty of every Muslim, whether an individual or a ruler, not to sell a single inch of the land of Islam and the Muslims to a disbeliever (kafir), regardless of their status or standing, because the Muslim’s ownership of the land is nominal; its true ownership belongs to Islam and the Muslims who purified it with their sacred blood from the filth of disbelief and its hegemony over it (2). ¶

(1) See: *Khatar al-Yahudiyya al-'Alamiyya 'ala al-Islam wal-Masihiyya* (The Danger of World Jewry to Islam and Christianity), Abdullah al-Tall, pp. 250-264. (2) See: pp. 660-666 of this treatise. ¶

The Seventh Example: Leasing places and entities to those who use them as a target for disobedience to Allah ¶

The fundamental principle of 'Ijarah' (leasing/hiring) is permissibility, as it is a contract for a permissible benefit in exchange for a known consideration. Jurists (Fuqaha) have stipulated that the benefit which the lessee intends to derive from the leased object must be permissible; therefore, a lease for a forbidden purpose is invalid. For example, if one leases his house as a place for adultery, singing, to be used as a church, or for the sale of alcohol and similar prohibited things. ¶

The owner of the leased property may be a state or an individual; in both cases, it is a condition that the leased object be used for a permissible benefit. Thus, if a state leases its land or a part of its territory to an infidel state to be used as a base for striking against Islam and the Muslims, then this contract is void from its inception, the benefit resulting from it is forbidden, and this act in itself constitutes 'Muwala' (allegiance) to the disbelievers and 'Muhadda' (hostility) towards Allah, His Messenger, and the believers. Regrettably, this is the path followed by some states that claim to be Islamic, when they... ¶

When they conclude agreements with certain infidel states, those states stipulate that the countries claiming to be Islamic must permit them to establish military bases on their soil. The objective is to protect their colonial interests in the Muslim world and to assist some of those claiming Islam while they strike at one another, in order to weaken both sides and eventually seize them—just as happened to the Muslims in Andalusia at the hands of the Christians. ¶

Those who have sold themselves and their nation to the infidels do not realize that the responsibility of a Muslim ruler regarding the infidels entering his lands is like the responsibility of a homeowner regarding the individuals who enter his house. Therefore, it is not permissible for a just ruler to place Muslim lands, or parts thereof, at the disposal of the infidels so they may use them as a base from which to strike at some Muslims and inflict harm upon them. Likewise, it is not permissible to designate a specific area within the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam) for the infidels to practice all the forms of immorality and decadence that are prevalent in their own countries. ¶

Regrettably, the reality is otherwise. Egypt agreed to grant the United States of America the right to develop the Ras Banas base in exchange for $1,650 million in military aid, so that this site would become a permanent base for the United States to protect its interests, threaten the interests of Muslims, and pit them against one another. Similarly, the Sultan of Oman agreed to let the United States use an old British base on the island of Masirah and to improve the Seeb base, located at the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz, under the pretext of resisting Soviet bases in Aden, Syria, Libya, and other Arab countries. ¶

Consequently, some Islamic countries have become divided into bases. ¶

Militarily, some of these entities are subordinate to the East and some to the West. This situation deprives them of their identity and true independence, enabling the disbelievers (kuffar) to pit Muslims against one another to destroy them all and then divide the spoils, just as they did during the Second World War. ¶

Among the prohibited forms of leasing is what some Muslims do by renting their properties to those who turn them into places of disobedience. Islam has forbidden a Muslim from providing any form of cooperation to the kuffar that results in disobedience to Allah and His Messenger. Allah Almighty says: 'And cooperate in righteousness and piety, but do not cooperate in sin and aggression. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is severe in penalty' (Al-Ma'idah: 2). Ibn Sirin (may Allah have mercy on him) was asked about a man who sells or leases his house to a Christian who intends to use it as a church or place of worship; he recited the verse: 'And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them' (Al-Ma'idah: 51). Thus, he considered selling or leasing a house to disbelievers who use it as a place to disobey Allah—by making it a church, a place to sell alcohol, or a site for prostitution—as an act of wala' (loyalty/alliance) to the kuffar, rendering the person deserving of the same threat as those who take the kuffar as allies. ¶

Al-Qadi, from the companions of Imam Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), stated that it is not permissible for a Muslim to lease their house to someone who will use it as a temple for fire (like a Zoroastrian), a church (like a Jew or Christian), or a place where prohibited items are sold and immoral acts are committed, regardless of whether the tenant stipulated it or not, provided the owner knows such acts will occur there. ¶

Based on this, the companions of Imam Ahmad have equated the ruling of leasing with that of selling, despite their differing opinions regarding Imam Ahmad’s stance on prohibition. ¶

Does this imply detestation (karaha) or prohibition (tahrim)? ¶

The preferred scholarly view, and Allah knows best, is that if a person uses an item for an apparent act of disobedience, it is forbidden for a Muslim to sell or lease it to them, in accordance with the Almighty’s saying: “Do not cooperate in sin and aggression.” If the occurrence of the sin in that item is only potentially expected in private, then the prohibition is for reasons of detestation, not due to lack of certainty or the absence of anything manifest. ¶

Abu Hanifa stated that it is permissible to lease it to a disbeliever, even if he commits an act of disobedience against Allah therein. His evidence for this is that the rent is in exchange for a period of time; it is not contingent upon the performance or non-performance of these acts, just as when one rents a house to sleep or dwell in—the rent is binding upon the lessee even if they do not perform those actions therein. ¶

However, the general body of jurists disagreed with him, stating that if it is highly probable that the lessee will use it for a forbidden purpose, the rent becomes unlawful, because rent is in exchange for use in a permissible manner, not a forbidden one. The proof for this is that the Prophet (ﷺ) cursed the one who presses grapes for wine and the one for whom it is pressed. The one pressing is merely extracting permissible juice, but when he sees that the one requesting it intends to make wine, and he presses it for that purpose, he becomes deserving of the curse. This is an established principle in Islamic Shariah. ¶

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: “Allah has cursed wine, its drinker, its server, its seller, its buyer, its presser, the one for whom it is pressed, its carrier, and the one to whom it is carried.” ¶

Based on this, everyone who participates in preparing or facilitating a forbidden act for people falls under this threat, such as sellers of narcotics and the like, or owners of shops selling music; this also extends to promiscuous singers and actresses. ¶