Some Muslims may respond by arguing: “The scholars have said that if a Muslim enters darul-kufr (land of disbelief) with the impression that they would do so in a peaceful manner, then it is not permissible for him/her to then be deceptive by fighting the non-Muslims of that land.” Another argument: “If the Muslims are in possession of a passport of a disbelieving nation, then the passport acts as a treaty of peace between them and the non-Muslims in that land.” Response: Notice how both of these arguments concede to the fact that the asl (foundation) of the non-Muslims, is that their blood is permissible to be shed. And that the only think that protects the non-Muslims, are: 1) Not being deceptive when entering into the lands of the disbelievers, and that 2) Passports act as a treaty of peace between the Muslims and non-Muslims The problems with these two arguments are many, but let me just mention a few: 1) Muhammad in the Sahihayn allowed for the Muslims to use deceit during times of war. As narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih al-Bukhaari 3029: “War is deceit”. This is also mentioned by many of the fuqahaa (those that study fiqh). Thus, if the Caliph believes that sending Muslim fighters to kufriyyat nations with the objective of attacking them would bring a military benefit to the Muslims, then there is no evidence from the Shar’iah saying how that is impermissible. 2) There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that documents like passports, are full of kufr (i.e. to submit to man-made laws other than the Shar’iah). Thus, any treaty which stipulates kufr, cannot be obeyed. It is void. 3) What about the Muslims that did not choose whether they wanted to live in ‘disbelieving nations’, but were already born there? According to what the fuqahaa have stated, treaties must be accepted by both parties (and thus), we see how this argument of the moderate Muslims break down. My reasoning also applies to those Muslims living in ‘disbelieving nations’ that do not currently have possession of a passport (or any other documents). Given this scenario then, can the blood of the non-Muslims be permissibly shed? Oh moderate Muslim, do you not see how your arguments are full of contradictions? 4) Even if it was to be granted that passports (and other documents like it) are peace treaties between the Muslims and non-Muslims, can peace treaties eventually become broken by the other party? Are peace treaties still in force if the leaders of that given ‘disbelieving nation’ are attacking Muslim nations, imprisoning Muslims, placing surveillance in the mosques, or other things like these? If so, oh moderate Muslim, then in what scenario can these peace treaties EVER be considered to be legitimately broken by the opposing party (i.e. non-Muslim leaders)? As we see, the arguments of the moderate Muslims don’t work. There is no way that one tries to defend a religion of violence by making it appear as if it is a religion of peace, without intentionally being deceptive in that effort (the irony), or without them just speaking out of ignorance of what their religion actually teaches.
Have a listen of this stream where Hamza Yusuf is clear that the so-called early "Meccan" phase of Islam (namely, the "peaceful" phase before offensive jihad was introduced) is never over. Rather, when Muhammadans are not in a position to impose Sharia on non-Muhammadans, then the early "Meccan" phase of "peaceful" co-existence kicks in. ruclips.net/video/VgMvZ1doU0Q/видео.html
Some Muslims may respond by arguing:
“The scholars have said that if a Muslim enters darul-kufr (land of disbelief) with the impression that they would do so in a peaceful manner, then it is not permissible for him/her to then be deceptive by fighting the non-Muslims of that land.”
Another argument:
“If the Muslims are in possession of a passport of a disbelieving nation, then the passport acts as a treaty of peace between them and the non-Muslims in that land.”
Response:
Notice how both of these arguments concede to the fact that the asl (foundation) of the non-Muslims, is that their blood is permissible to be shed. And that the only think that protects the non-Muslims, are:
1) Not being deceptive when entering into the lands of the disbelievers, and that
2) Passports act as a treaty of peace between the Muslims and non-Muslims
The problems with these two arguments are many, but let me just mention a few:
1) Muhammad in the Sahihayn allowed for the Muslims to use deceit during times of war. As narrated by Abu Hurayrah in Sahih al-Bukhaari 3029: “War is deceit”. This is also mentioned by many of the fuqahaa (those that study fiqh). Thus, if the Caliph believes that sending Muslim fighters to kufriyyat nations with the objective of attacking them would bring a military benefit to the Muslims, then there is no evidence from the Shar’iah saying how that is impermissible.
2) There is no disagreement among the people of knowledge that documents like passports, are full of kufr (i.e. to submit to man-made laws other than the Shar’iah). Thus, any treaty which stipulates kufr, cannot be obeyed. It is void.
3) What about the Muslims that did not choose whether they wanted to live in ‘disbelieving nations’, but were already born there? According to what the fuqahaa have stated, treaties must be accepted by both parties (and thus), we see how this argument of the moderate Muslims break down. My reasoning also applies to those Muslims living in ‘disbelieving nations’ that do not currently have possession of a passport (or any other documents). Given this scenario then, can the blood of the non-Muslims be permissibly shed? Oh moderate Muslim, do you not see how your arguments are full of contradictions?
4) Even if it was to be granted that passports (and other documents like it) are peace treaties between the Muslims and non-Muslims, can peace treaties eventually become broken by the other party? Are peace treaties still in force if the leaders of that given ‘disbelieving nation’ are attacking Muslim nations, imprisoning Muslims, placing surveillance in the mosques, or other things like these? If so, oh moderate Muslim, then in what scenario can these peace treaties EVER be considered to be legitimately broken by the opposing party (i.e. non-Muslim leaders)?
As we see, the arguments of the moderate Muslims don’t work. There is no way that one tries to defend a religion of violence by making it appear as if it is a religion of peace, without intentionally being deceptive in that effort (the irony), or without them just speaking out of ignorance of what their religion actually teaches.
Have a listen of this stream where Hamza Yusuf is clear that the so-called early "Meccan" phase of Islam (namely, the "peaceful" phase before offensive jihad was introduced) is never over. Rather, when Muhammadans are not in a position to impose Sharia on non-Muhammadans, then the early "Meccan" phase of "peaceful" co-existence kicks in.
ruclips.net/video/VgMvZ1doU0Q/видео.html
May God comfort and protect persecuted Christians ☦️
Amen!
Keep exposing the truth