Read on Twitter
Law of the land; a brief critique.
For several decades, we have heard time and time again that Islam commands obedience to the law of the land but how true is this claim? As far as I am concerned the claim is utter garbage spewed by mental midgets who disregard the revealed law
For several decades, we have heard time and time again that Islam commands obedience to the law of the land but how true is this claim? As far as I am concerned the claim is utter garbage spewed by mental midgets who disregard the revealed law
to be accepted by the heathens. However, my personal view is of no consequence (in itself) and as such it is only prudent that I make an argument based on proofs.
Before preceding it is necessary that the term be defined: The phrase law of the land (Latin lex terrae) is a
Before preceding it is necessary that the term be defined: The phrase law of the land (Latin lex terrae) is a
legal term, it means all the laws in force within a country or region. The term is descriptive and general, it describes a reality that exists without making further judgement on it. So, when someone says, “Muslims are obliged to obey the law of the land”, they are saying that
any law that is enforced in any land must be obeyed when in that land. This is clearly false as if a law contradicts the shariah it would be prohibited to comply to it except in certain circumstances. However our opponents will often add the caveat, “so long as it doesn’t go
against Islam”, so according to our opponents one is obliged (by Allah) to follow whatever law is enforced in whatever land when one is present therein so long as it doesn’t contradict Islam. In sum our opponents are of the view that when one is in Canada, he must obey Canadian
law, when in America, American law, when in the state of California, Californian law, when in Wisconsin, Wisconsin law, and when in an Islamic state, Islamic law.
This first issue with this this notion is it gives off the impression that all laws in all regions are equally
This first issue with this this notion is it gives off the impression that all laws in all regions are equally
valid, the only differential factor is place. So, as a matter of principle, American law is as valid as Islamic law, the only thing that makes one law predominant over another law is whether it is enforced in a given land. To be fair, our opponents will insist that one is still
obliged by certain aspects of Islamic law even when outside of an Islamic state, like not fornicating, but as a matter of principle one must submit to American law when in American territory.
To genuinely believe that any law other than the shariah is valid or equal to the
To genuinely believe that any law other than the shariah is valid or equal to the
shariah is pure disbelief. It is a necessary belief of the Muslims that our shariah abrogated all previous laws and to follow the law of Jews today is invalid as it is abrogated, so how about secular law? If we cannot follow laws Allah revealed to previous people, then how can we
follow laws that were invented by heathens? As for the proof that previous laws are abrogated:
وَإِذْ أَخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِيثَـٰقَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ لَمَآ ءَاتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَـٰبٍۢ وَحِكْمَةٍۢ ثُمَّ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌۭ مُّصَدِّقٌۭ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِۦ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ
وَإِذْ أَخَذَ ٱللَّهُ مِيثَـٰقَ ٱلنَّبِيِّـۧنَ لَمَآ ءَاتَيْتُكُم مِّن كِتَـٰبٍۢ وَحِكْمَةٍۢ ثُمَّ جَآءَكُمْ رَسُولٌۭ مُّصَدِّقٌۭ لِّمَا مَعَكُمْ لَتُؤْمِنُنَّ بِهِۦ وَلَتَنصُرُنَّهُ
ۥ ۚ قَالَ ءَأَقْرَرْتُمْ وَأَخَذْتُمْ عَلَىٰ ذَٰلِكُمْ إِصْرِى ۖ قَالُوٓا۟ أَقْرَرْنَا ۚ قَالَ فَٱشْهَدُوا۟ وَأَنَا۠ مَعَكُم مِّنَ ٱلشَّـٰهِدِينَ
Translation of meaning: Remember when Allah made a covenant with the Prophets: Now that We have given you a share of the Book and
Translation of meaning: Remember when Allah made a covenant with the Prophets: Now that We have given you a share of the Book and
Wisdom, if a Messenger comes to you confirming what is with you, you must believe in him and support him. He asked, Do you agree and undertake My commission on this condition? They replied, we agree. He said, Bear witness and I am with you as a witness. (3:81)
قَـٰتِلُوا۟ ٱلَّذِينَ لَا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَلَا بِٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ وَلَا يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ ٱللَّهُ وَرَسُولُهُۥ وَلَا يَدِينُونَ دِينَ ٱلْحَقِّ مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ حَتَّىٰ يُعْطُوا۟ ٱلْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍۢ وَهُمْ صَـٰغِرُونَ
Translation of meaning
Translation of meaning
Fight against those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth [i.e., Islām] from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the
jizyah willingly while they are made low. (9:29)
Had it been valid to follow other than the shariah then the kuffar wouldn’t be blamed for not following it. Likewise consider what bukhari narrated
أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ يُعْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي نُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْبِ مَسِيرَةَ
Had it been valid to follow other than the shariah then the kuffar wouldn’t be blamed for not following it. Likewise consider what bukhari narrated
أُعْطِيتُ خَمْسًا لَمْ يُعْطَهُنَّ أَحَدٌ قَبْلِي نُصِرْتُ بِالرُّعْبِ مَسِيرَةَ
شَهْرٍ، وَجُعِلَتْ لِيَ الأَرْضُ مَسْجِدًا وَطَهُورًا، فَأَيُّمَا رَجُلٍ مِنْ أُمَّتِي أَدْرَكَتْهُ الصَّلاَةُ فَلْيُصَلِّ، وَأُحِلَّتْ لِيَ الْمَغَانِمُ وَلَمْ تَحِلَّ لأَحَدٍ قَبْلِي، وَأُعْطِيتُ الشَّفَاعَةَ، وَكَانَ النَّبِيُّ يُبْعَثُ إِلَى قَوْمِهِ خَاصَّةً، وَبُعِثْتُ
إِلَى النَّاسِ عَامَّةً
Translation of meaning: I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me. -1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. -2. The earth has been made for me (and for my
Translation of meaning: I have been given five things which were not given to anyone else before me. -1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. -2. The earth has been made for me (and for my
followers) a place for praying and purifying, therefore anyone of my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due. -3. The booty has been made Halal (lawful) for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. -4. I have been given the right of intercession.
-5. Every Prophet used to be sent to his people only but I have been sent to all mankind.
The sending to all people relates to law, as all people by default are obliged to believe in all the prophets but they weren’t obliged to follow the law they came with unless they were from
The sending to all people relates to law, as all people by default are obliged to believe in all the prophets but they weren’t obliged to follow the law they came with unless they were from
their people, yet everyone is obliged to become Muslim and submit to our law. Thus, it is not appropriate to see any legal tradition as valid besides the Islamic tradition, and the one who sees the laws of the kuffar as valid is a kaffir. There is ijma upon this!
Considering
Considering
then that it is necessary for us to see kaffir law as invalid, oppression, misguidance, and deception, how can it be allowable to preach this law of the land stuff? Perhaps someone will say, “yes we see their law as invalid but what we mean is that we are obliged to obey it even
though it is invalid”, this mental retardation. As for the arguments that the deceivers use to push the idea that obeying the kuffar is an obligation, with Allah’s permission they will be addressed.
These people will often argue that Allah has obliged us to obey those in
These people will often argue that Allah has obliged us to obey those in
authority and the kuffar have authority in the land they have usurped, so we must obey them. This argument of theirs is false as Allah made no such command, rather Allah commanded:
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْر
يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوٓا۟ أَطِيعُوا۟ ٱللَّهَ وَأَطِيعُوا۟ ٱلرَّسُولَ وَأُو۟لِى ٱلْأَمْر
ِ مِنكُمْ ۖ فَإِن تَنَـٰزَعْتُمْ فِى شَىْءٍۢ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى ٱللَّهِ وَٱلرَّسُولِ إِن كُنتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِٱللَّهِ وَٱلْيَوْمِ ٱلْـَٔاخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌۭ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا
Translation of meaning: O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority
Translation of meaning: O believers! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority
among you. Should you disagree on anything, then refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you ˹truly˺ believe in Allah and the Last Day. This is the best and fairest resolution. (4:59)
This aya is commanding us to obey the believers in authority among us, not everyone who has
This aya is commanding us to obey the believers in authority among us, not everyone who has
some level of authority! Look at the wording of the aya, the address is to the believers and as such the “from among you” means from among the believers. This is basic but because people don’t have basic compression skills, they can’t understand the most apparent of speech.
As for the ahadith that refer to obeying those in authority they refer to the Muslims in authority due to the fact that rebellion is permissible when a ruler disbelieves, and that wouldn’t be the case if obeying the kaffir was obligatory. Reflect on the hadith bukhari narrated
قَالَ دَعَانَا النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم فَبَايَعْنَاهُ فَقَالَ فِيمَا أَخَذَ عَلَيْنَا أَنْ بَايَعَنَا عَلَى السَّمْعِ وَالطَّاعَةِ، فِي مَنْشَطِنَا وَمَكْرَهِنَا، وَعُسْرِنَا، وَيُسْرِنَا، وَأَثَرَةٍ عَلَيْنَا، وَأَنْ لاَ نُنَازِعَ الأَمْرَ أَهْلَهُ، إِلاَّ أَنْ تَرَوْا
كُفْرًا بَوَاحًا، عِنْدَكُمْ مِنَ اللَّهِ فِيهِ بُرْهَانٌ
Translation of meaning: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called us and we took the oath of allegiance to him. Among the injunctions he made binding upon us was: Listening and obedience (to the Amir) in our pleasure and
Translation of meaning: The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) called us and we took the oath of allegiance to him. Among the injunctions he made binding upon us was: Listening and obedience (to the Amir) in our pleasure and
displeasure, in our adversity and prosperity, even when somebody is given preference over us, and not to fight against him unless we noticed him having open Kufr (disbelief) for which we would have a proof with us from Allah.
Considering what has been mentioned there is no alternative except that the kaffir ruler has no obedience rendered unto him.
As for their other argument, “we are obliged to carry out our agreements and we agreed to obey these people”, well maybe you agreed to that, but I didn’t
As for their other argument, “we are obliged to carry out our agreements and we agreed to obey these people”, well maybe you agreed to that, but I didn’t
I do not understand how your personal agreement is now a proof that Muslims must obey the law of the land. Rather it isn’t a proof of anything besides your mental ineptitude. Not to mention agreements must be in accordance with the revealed law, if you agree to eat bacon it is
haram for you to eat the bacon, so before passing judgement on your agreement we must see the exact terms of your agreement.
It should also be considered that agreements are not assumed, people do not have an agreement by being born in a land. Further someone doesn’t have an
It should also be considered that agreements are not assumed, people do not have an agreement by being born in a land. Further someone doesn’t have an
agreement if they are forced to make one, it’s not binding just like the forced divorce doesn’t stand. So, from which perspective does this law of the land nonsense stand?
At best our opponents can argue that the immigrants have some sought of agreement, but as for those who
At best our opponents can argue that the immigrants have some sought of agreement, but as for those who
didn’t disobey Allah by immigrating to the lands of disbelief, they have no agreement. This isn’t to say that one should break the law of the land, it might not be advantageous, but one would not be sinful for the mere act. If it results in something that is prohibited, that is a
separate issue.
The real reason preachers push this nonsense about law of the land is because if they don’t, they will be hated by the kuffar. If the preachers were honest, they would be in a tough situation, think about it. If a Muslim born in the west or an illegal
The real reason preachers push this nonsense about law of the land is because if they don’t, they will be hated by the kuffar. If the preachers were honest, they would be in a tough situation, think about it. If a Muslim born in the west or an illegal
immigrant decided to make money by engaging in bank heists, this would technically not be sinful. Imagine a preacher saying this.
To be clear I am not advising Muslims to break the invalid law of any country they reside in, I am just pointing out that they may not be sinful if
To be clear I am not advising Muslims to break the invalid law of any country they reside in, I am just pointing out that they may not be sinful if
they did. The purpose of pointing this out is simply to preserve our legal tradition, we cannot allow for kids to corrupt our law just to fit in. Yes, my words will cause offense, yes, they might make some people hate Muslims, but that’s worth it because my words are preserving
our legal tradition insha’Allah.
Like and retweet the thread maybe then your favorite preacher will feel the need to give some nonsense answer.
Like and retweet the thread maybe then your favorite preacher will feel the need to give some nonsense answer.
