Some Valuable Answers from Shaykh Gibril Haddad

I recently obtained a portion of a dialogue in which Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad responded to a series of questions put to him by a concerned Muslim in the United Kingdom. The questioner was seeking clarification to some statements that he'd came across by one of the U.K.'s extremist neo-Khawarij groups. I've posted portions of this valuable exchange below and, for our reader's benefit, I've spruced it up a bit—which included correcting some spelling errors, coloring the text of Shaykh Gibril's responses maroon and inserting parenthetical translations of some of the Arabic terminology.

---

Questioner:
(1) Concerning the Muslim rulers: can so-and-so be
called kaffir (i.e. disbeliever) based on his non-implementation of shari`a (i.e. Islamic Law) and his allowing of riba (i.e. interest) and other anti-Islamic laws?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Yazid drank wine and killed dozens of sahaba; he was not called a disbeliever but dissolute and depraved, i.e. fasiq.

Questioner:
(2) "So-and-so's non-implementation of shari`a goes to show that whilst he has the ability to implement this law, he is denying it by not implementing it in the holy lands of Hijaz." Is this a valid statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
No, it is invalid both logically and legally.

Questioner:
(3) Where do we stand with regards to voting in a government which is responsible for the bombing of Islamic nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan and others? Does voting in itself constitute shirk (i.e. idolatry) or kufr (i.e. disbelief) for we are voting in a man-made system and "kufr laws"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Voting in a man-made system and kufr laws no more constitutes shirk or kufr than obeying man-made traffic laws in the same system. More than that, if voting empowers one to promote the lesser of two evils then it is an obligatory act according to the Shari`a.

Questioner:
(4) Where do we stand with regard to court hearings and arbitration and judgement according to "kufr law"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The same place we stand with regard to righteously and lawfully promoting right and truth everywhere inasmuch as we can.

Questioner:
(5) "Following the law of the land" - to what extent do we obey such a statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
To the extent countenanced by the Shari`a, which recognizes: [1] the validity of non-Muslim laws, especially those which are based on heavenly Scriptures; and [2] the fact that "the law of the land" is motivated by the protection of populations from inequity and crime.

Questioner:
(6) Are we living in Dar al-Harb?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti confirmed to me the view that at the present time there is nowhere on the face of the earth a declared state of war between any two respectively Muslim and non-Muslim states.

Questioner:
(7) The hadith, "one who dies without pledging alliegence to the khaleef dies a death of ignorance," is presented by these groups to show that the Muslim masses are in a state of jahiliyya (i.e. pre-Islamic ignorance) for they do not giving bay'ah (i.e. oath of allegience) to their khaleef (i.e. Caliph - the legitimate Muslim ruler). What is the tafsir (i.e. commentary) on this from a scholarly perspective?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The meaning of this hadith according to the Salaf and the 'Ulama is "one who dies without recognizing the caliph to whom the Jama`a of the Muslims have pledged their loyalty", such as in the case of the Khulafa al-Rashidin, the Jama`a being defined as the Sawad al-'Azam (i.e. the masses of the Muslims). There is neither such a Caliph, nor such a jama`a, in our time.

Questioner:
These ideas, as extreme as they appear, have a significant hold on people. So much so that stealing from non-Muslims has been declared as halal (i.e. lawful) under the concept that the lands of UK and US are Dar ul-Harb (i.e. a land generally at war with Muslims), and fraudulent transactions have been legalised under their law in the name of "Islam".

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Such are thieves who are passible of the full brunt of the law, as well as depraved innovators if not kuffar for misrepresenting the haram as halal and vice-versa.

Questioner:
Somebody needs to stand up and defend the pure and pristine
deen (i.e. religion) brought to us by Sayyidina Muhammad ('alahimus salam), but how is this possible with the lack of scholarship in these lands?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
"Somebody"? Rather, every person of sound mind and belief. It is just another false notion that one needs to be a scholar to stand for what is right, while the rest scratch their heads before sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block.

Moreover, a Muslim in a non-Muslim state, in the eyes of the Shari`a, is never more than a guest even if he is a voting, tax-paying, and even a born citizen in the eyes of that state.

Since before the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, politicized Muslims, across the spectrum from modernists to purists, have consistently preferred to adopt un-Islamic strategies of power politics rather than what the Shari`a commanded. Any call to a return to Khilafa (i.e. rule of all Muslim lands by a single Caliph) by the very products of those philosophies is a masterpiece of hypocrisy.

---

Since, based on what I've seen, some of the above mentioned ideas are rather widespread amongst various portions of our Ummah, I pray that posting these insightful responses will be of some use, insha'llah. Indeed, I pray that "every person of sound mind and belief" takes these answers to heart and avoids "sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block".

Deen On...