Question:

Bismillah ar-Rahman ar-Raheem

Assalamu alaikum wa Rahmatullah wa Barakatahu

It is mentioned in the book, The Islamic State, on p.140: [Every person holding the citizenship of the State enjoys the full rights decreed for him by the Shari'ah, whether he is Muslim or not. Anyone not holding that citizenship is deprived of these rights, even if he were Muslim. For instance, if a Muslim man had a Christian mother who held the Islamic citizenship and a father who did not, then his mother would qualify to receive sustenance from him and his father would not. If the mother claimed it from him the judge would rule in her favour because she would be classified as a citizen of the Islamic State, whereas if the father attempted to do likewise the judge would reject his claim because he would not be classified as one of its citizens].

And the question here is: Irrespective of the person being Muslim or non-Muslim and irrespective of him holding citizenship for the Islamic State or not, is not obligatory upon the person to be dutiful to his parents (Bir al-Walidain)? And lower to them a wing of humility in mercy... And if this person commits violations and infringes upon individuals outside of the authority of the State who are foreigners and do not hold citizenship. Then these come to raise a complaint, will the Qadi (judge) dismiss their case on the basis of the argument that they do not carry the citizenship? Please clarify in detail. May Allah reward you with all goodness.

wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

Answer:

wa as-Salaamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu.

There are two issues that are separate from one another: The Judicial ruling and Bir al-Walidain:

As for the first matter: The request of a person who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship to receive Nafaqah (financial spending) from family and relatives in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is because the difference in the Dar (homeland) diverts the financial rights from being obligatory. This is as the financial rights do not belong to those who are in Dar ul-Harb because the Messenger (saw) said in the Hadith extracted by Muslim narrated by Suleiman Bin Buraidah narrated from his father said:

كان رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم  إِذَا أَمَّرَ أَمِيرًا عَلَى جَيْشٍ أَوْ سَرِيَّةٍ أَوْصَاهُ فِي خَاصَّتِهِ بِتَقْوَى اللَّهِ وَمَنْ مَعَهُ مِنْ الْمُسْلِمِينَ خَيْراً، ثُمَّ قَالَ... ثُمَّ ادْعُهُمْ إِلَى التَّحَوُّلِ مِنْ دَارِهِمْ إِلَى دَارِ الْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ إِنْ فَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ فَلَهُمْ مَا لِلْمُهَاجِرِينَ وَعَلَيْهِمْ مَا عَلَى الْمُهَاجِرِينَ، فَإِنْ أَبَوْا أَنْ يَتَحَوَّلُوا مِنْهَا فَأَخْبِرْهُمْ أَنَّهُمْ يَكُونُونَ كَأَعْرَابِ الْمُسْلِمِينَ يَجْرِي عَلَيْهِمْ حُكْمُ اللهِ الَّذِي يَجْرِي عَلَى الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ إِلاَّ أَنْ يُجَاهِدُوا مَعَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ....

"When the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him, he said.... Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhajireen and tell them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' unless they fight alongside the Muslims..."

And the statement of the Messenger of Allah (saw) in the Hadith: وَلا يَكُونُ لَهُمْ فِي الْغَنِيمَةِ وَالْفَيْءِ شَيْءٌ "...but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' (booty)" means that their refraining from migrating or joining (to the Dar of the Muhajireen) causes them to lose their right to benefit from the booty and spoils of war. All other types of funds are included by this in analogy to the booty and spoils of war, i.e. that their financial rights are withheld. Therefore, the Muslim who rejects moving to the Dar ul-Muhajireen if it exists according to the Shariah rules of the Hijrah and still retains the citizenship of the disbelieving (Kaffir) state, then this Muslim in relation to the rulings of money is like non-Muslims in respect of their exclusion from attaining its rights i.e. financial rights. So he does not have that which the Muslims possess (of rights) and he is not obliged with what the Muslims are (in terms of responsibilities). This means that the financial rules are not applied upon him because he did not move to the land (Dar) of the Muhajireen.

Therefore the claim of the father who resides in Dar ul-Harb upon his son who resides in Dar ul-Islam if it is a claim relating to a financial right like Nafaqah, then this claim is not accepted because of the differences in Dars (lands) which prevent the obligatory financial rights. This all relates to the first matter i.e. the judicial judgment in regards to financial rights.

As for the second matter which is Bir al-Walidain (dutifulness to parents), then this is a different matter as the differences in lands does not prevent being dutiful to the parents and maintaining ties with them. The evidence for this is the statement of Allah (swt):

(وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَى أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا)

"And we have enjoined on man to be good and dutiful to his parents, but if they strive to make you join with Me (in worship) anything (as a partner) of which you have no knowledge, then obey them not. Unto Me is your return, and I shall tell you what you used to do." [Al-Ankabut: 8]

Also what was collected by Al-Bukhari as narrated by Asmaa bint Abu Bakr (ra) who said: "My mother came to visit me at the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw), and she was a Mushrik. So I consulted the Messenger of Allah, (saw) and asked him, ‘My mother wants to visit me and expects me to treat her kindly; should I uphold the ties of kinship with my mother?' He said, «نَعَمْ صِلِي أُمَّكِ» ‘Yes, uphold the ties of kinship with your mother'."

As for your question in regards to criminal acts, infringements and their like then this has different Ahkam (rulings). The difference in the Dar (land) does not prevent that but rather it is dealt with according to the specific Shariah rules with consideration of whether the land is in an actual belligerent state of war or potentially belligerent state or states with treaties, etc.

So for example the following Ayah:

وَمَا كَانَ لِمُؤْمِنٍ أَنْ يَقْتُلَ مُؤْمِنًا إِلَّا خَطَأً وَمَنْ قَتَلَ مُؤْمِنًا خَطَأً فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ إِلَّا أَنْ يَصَّدَّقُوا فَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ وَهُوَ مُؤْمِنٌ فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِنْ قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ وَكَانَ اللَّهُ عَلِيمًا حَكِيمًا

"And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give [up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise." [An-Nisaa: 92]

So the Ayah views that if the Muslim kills a Muslim by mistake in Dar ul-Harb Al-Fi'liyah (in actual state of war) (قَوْمٍ عَدُوٍّ لَكُمْ) i.e. people who are your enemies, then the ruling is: (فَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ ‘to free a believing slave'. And if he killed a Muslim from Dar ul-Harb that has a treaty with the Muslims i.e. from a people you have a treaty with, (قَوْمٍ بَيْنَكُمْ وَبَيْنَهُمْ مِيثَاقٌ) then the ruling is: (فَدِيَةٌ مُسَلَّمَةٌ إِلَى أَهْلِهِ وَتَحْرِيرُ رَقَبَةٍ مُؤْمِنَةٍ فَمَنْ لَمْ يَجِدْ فَصِيَامُ شَهْرَيْنِ مُتَتَابِعَيْنِ تَوْبَةً مِنَ اللَّهِ) "then a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah." Therefore the financial rights differ from other matters and indeed the financial rights sometimes differ within the very same Dar (land). So for example, a Muslim does not inherit from a Kaffir and the Kaffir does not inherit from a Muslim even if both the Kaffir and Muslim both resided in Dar ul-Islam. The Messenger (saw) said: «وَلاَ يَرِثُ الْقَاتِلُ شَيْئاً» "And the killer does not inherit anything." (Abu Dawood). And the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: "The Kaffir does not inherit the Muslim and the Muslim does not the Kaffir." (Ahmad)

In conclusion, the Muslim who lives in Dar ul-Harb and carries its citizenship and he has rejected to move to Dar ul-Islam when it is in existence, his claim for financial rights upon his son who live in Dar ul-Islam is not accepted. This is different to being dutiful to parents (Bir al-Walidain) and maintaining ties with them so the Muslim son is dutiful to his disbelieving parents and is good to them as long as they do not strive to make you associate partners to Allah (swt) or anything related like if the parent was to fight in the army who was actually engaging in warring in which case there are other Shariah rules...

Your brother,

Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

The link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page: