A Muslim Nations Duty in Respect to Non-Muslim Nations: Renegade 'Muslim' Groups
"And to those who accepted faith but did not migrate [to Madinah], you owe no duty of protection to them until they migrate; but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance; and Allah is the All-Seer of what you do."
(Translated, link, 8:72)
There is an interesting principle being laid out here:
The Quran does not PUT ANY ONUS OF RESPONSIBILITY on a Muslim state to assist Muslims who do not make any attempt at leaving a nation they are being persecuted in. It is the duty of those being oppressed, to make an effort to leave the area they are being oppressed in if they believe their religion is threatened. This is explicitly indicated by the words "but if they seek your help in religion". The act of assisting is tied to those who SEEK HELP.
So in summary:
1. The Quran first and foremost absolves the Muslim collectivity who had migrated and established their own state of initiating any help to those that remained in that nation that is persecuting them.
2. The Quran further puts the onus of responsibility on the person who is being persecuted to take some initiative, through the words "but if they seek your help in religion".
At the same time, this verse clearly substantiates that a Muslim state has the duty to keep its borders open for those whom are being oppressed and persecuted by another nation. The Quran ALSO stipulates that a Muslim state MUST help the persecuted people seeking help, except under one condition. That condition is that in the assisting of these Muslims, the state is not violating the treaty made with that nation. If this assistance violates the treaty, than the MUSLIM STATE CANNOT IN NO WAY VIOLATE A TREATY, EVEN IF THAT NATION IS PERSECUTING MUSLIMS.
There is an essential, and reasonable justification for this, and that is, the Muslim state has a responsibility towards its collectivity, and it cannot extend itself into a region beyond its own control putting at risk its own very existence. There was ample time for people to leave their own places in light of the dictates of their religion. Countless other people who migrated, as well as those that took these persecuted people in, had made their sacrifices. This is precisely why the very first portion of this verse, God Almighty states:
"Indeed! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them."
Once again, a Muslim nation's FIRST AND FOREMOST obligation is specifically to those that are citizens of their own state. Further, the Quran is emphatic that treaties, contracts, and alliances can in no way be broken and violated by a Muslim, including the state, and that the only time a treaty would lose its validity is if the opposing party dishonours it. Even than, the Quran is quite explicit in how it should be done.
"And if you fear any treachery from a people throw back [their covenant] to them on equal terms. Certainly Allah likes not the treacherous."
(8:58)
The words throw back the covenant imply a forceful, non-haphazard action. It further states that the Muslims cannot respond to the breaking of the treaty, EXCEPT IN EQUAL TERMS. They cannot exceed the harm that was originally inflicted on them. This is fundamentally explicit in the Quran.
So when 'Islamic groups' call for actions against nations that are legitimately recognized by the countries they are living in, they are not fulfilling any of the conditions of Islam. When 'Islamic groups' call on other Muslims to violate the terms that their respective countries have made with the 'Islamic groups' enemy, than it is the Islamic group that is violating basic Islamic principles. When 'Islamic groups' wage jihad outside the state authority, because they believe they are doing something for Islam, they are doing exactly opposite of what Islam tells them to do. No amount of yelling 'kaffir' country can change this fact. No amount of yelling they are disbelievers can change this fact. No amount of renegade groups that preach on some sort of platform of Islam can change this fact.
"And to those who accepted faith but did not migrate [to Madinah], you owe no duty of protection to them until they migrate; but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance; and Allah is the All-Seer of what you do."
(8:72)
The Quran recognizes the idea of statehood, but Muslims sadly do not. These are practical necessities, especially in this day and age. As is obvious, those people in the name of Islam who attack Muslim nations for their treaties with non-Muslims are violating essential principles of Islam. They are sacrificing long-term stability for some short-term gains. Statesmanship requires discipline, not hot-headedness and rash action.
(Translated, link, 8:72)
There is an interesting principle being laid out here:
The Quran does not PUT ANY ONUS OF RESPONSIBILITY on a Muslim state to assist Muslims who do not make any attempt at leaving a nation they are being persecuted in. It is the duty of those being oppressed, to make an effort to leave the area they are being oppressed in if they believe their religion is threatened. This is explicitly indicated by the words "but if they seek your help in religion". The act of assisting is tied to those who SEEK HELP.
So in summary:
1. The Quran first and foremost absolves the Muslim collectivity who had migrated and established their own state of initiating any help to those that remained in that nation that is persecuting them.
2. The Quran further puts the onus of responsibility on the person who is being persecuted to take some initiative, through the words "but if they seek your help in religion".
At the same time, this verse clearly substantiates that a Muslim state has the duty to keep its borders open for those whom are being oppressed and persecuted by another nation. The Quran ALSO stipulates that a Muslim state MUST help the persecuted people seeking help, except under one condition. That condition is that in the assisting of these Muslims, the state is not violating the treaty made with that nation. If this assistance violates the treaty, than the MUSLIM STATE CANNOT IN NO WAY VIOLATE A TREATY, EVEN IF THAT NATION IS PERSECUTING MUSLIMS.
There is an essential, and reasonable justification for this, and that is, the Muslim state has a responsibility towards its collectivity, and it cannot extend itself into a region beyond its own control putting at risk its own very existence. There was ample time for people to leave their own places in light of the dictates of their religion. Countless other people who migrated, as well as those that took these persecuted people in, had made their sacrifices. This is precisely why the very first portion of this verse, God Almighty states:
"Indeed! those who believed and left their homes and strove with their wealth and their lives for the cause of Allah, and those who took them in and helped them."
Once again, a Muslim nation's FIRST AND FOREMOST obligation is specifically to those that are citizens of their own state. Further, the Quran is emphatic that treaties, contracts, and alliances can in no way be broken and violated by a Muslim, including the state, and that the only time a treaty would lose its validity is if the opposing party dishonours it. Even than, the Quran is quite explicit in how it should be done.
"And if you fear any treachery from a people throw back [their covenant] to them on equal terms. Certainly Allah likes not the treacherous."
(8:58)
The words throw back the covenant imply a forceful, non-haphazard action. It further states that the Muslims cannot respond to the breaking of the treaty, EXCEPT IN EQUAL TERMS. They cannot exceed the harm that was originally inflicted on them. This is fundamentally explicit in the Quran.
So when 'Islamic groups' call for actions against nations that are legitimately recognized by the countries they are living in, they are not fulfilling any of the conditions of Islam. When 'Islamic groups' call on other Muslims to violate the terms that their respective countries have made with the 'Islamic groups' enemy, than it is the Islamic group that is violating basic Islamic principles. When 'Islamic groups' wage jihad outside the state authority, because they believe they are doing something for Islam, they are doing exactly opposite of what Islam tells them to do. No amount of yelling 'kaffir' country can change this fact. No amount of yelling they are disbelievers can change this fact. No amount of renegade groups that preach on some sort of platform of Islam can change this fact.
"And to those who accepted faith but did not migrate [to Madinah], you owe no duty of protection to them until they migrate; but if they seek your help in religion, it is your duty to help them except against a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance; and Allah is the All-Seer of what you do."
(8:72)
The Quran recognizes the idea of statehood, but Muslims sadly do not. These are practical necessities, especially in this day and age. As is obvious, those people in the name of Islam who attack Muslim nations for their treaties with non-Muslims are violating essential principles of Islam. They are sacrificing long-term stability for some short-term gains. Statesmanship requires discipline, not hot-headedness and rash action.
posted by Asim at 8:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home