(Series of Answers by the Scholar Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah, Ameer of Hizb ut Tahrir, to the Questions of His Facebook Page Followers)
To Fethi Marouani
Question:
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
It is stated in the book The Islamic State on page 140: "Every person carrying the citizenship (tabi'iyyah) of the State enjoys the rights decreed for them by the Shari'ah, whether they are Muslim or non-Muslim. Conversely, everyone who does not carry the citizenship is deprived of these rights, even if they were a Muslim. For instance, if a Muslim man has a Christian mother who carries the Islamic citizenship, and a Muslim father who does not carry the Islamic citizenship, his mother is entitled to maintenance from him, while his father is not. If his mother requested maintenance from him, the judge would rule in her favor because she carries the citizenship. However, if his father requested maintenance from him, the judge would not rule in his favor and would dismiss his claim."
The question here is: Regardless of whether a person is Muslim or non-Muslim, and regardless of whether they carry the citizenship of the Islamic State or not, is it not an obligation for a person to honor their parents? And to lower to them the wing of humility out of mercy... If this Muslim committed violations and transgressed against the boundaries of individuals outside the State's authority—who are foreigners not carrying the citizenship—and then fled inside the Islamic State, and then these people came to complain, would the judge reject their claim on the grounds that they do not carry the citizenship? We hope for clarification and detail on this, and may Allah reward you with all goodness. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
Answer:
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
There are two separate matters here: the judicial ruling and honoring parents (birr al-walidayn).
As for the first, a person who lives in Dar al-Harb (the Abode of War) and carries their citizenship will not have their claim accepted to take maintenance from their kin or relatives in Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam). This is because the difference of Dar (abode) shifts financial rights away from being obligatory. Financial rights are not granted to those in Dar al-Harb, because the Messenger of Allah (saw) said in the hadith narrated by Muslim from Sulaiman bin Buraidah, from his father:
كَانَ 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...
"Whenever the Messenger of Allah (saw) appointed a commander over an army or a detachment, he would exhort him personally to be mindful of Allah and to treat the Muslims who were with him well. Then he said: '...Then invite them to migrate from their land to the land of the Muhajireen (Emigrants), and inform them that if they do that, they will have the same rights and obligations as the Muhajireen. If they refuse to migrate from there, inform them that they will be like the desert Arabs among the Muslims; the ruling of Allah that applies to the Muslims will apply to them, but they will have no share in the spoils of war (Ghanimah) or the Fay’ unless they perform Jihad along with the Muslims...'" (Narrated by Muslim)
The words of the Messenger (saw) in the hadith: "but they will have no share in the spoils of war (Ghanimah) or the Fay’" mean that their refusal to migrate causes them to lose their right to Fay’ and Ghanimah. All other types of wealth are measured by analogy to Fay’ and Ghanimah; meaning, their financial rights related to wealth are dropped. Thus, a Muslim who refuses to move to Dar al-Muhajireen—when it exists according to the Shari'ah rulings of migration—and remains a citizen of a kufr state, is treated like non-Muslims regarding the ruling on wealth in terms of being deprived of financial rights. He does not have the same rights as the Muslims nor the same obligations as the Muslims [residing in Dar al-Islam]. This means financial rulings are not applied to him because he did not move to Dar al-Muhajireen... Therefore, the claim of a father who is in Dar al-Harb against his son in Dar al-Islam, if the claim is regarding a financial right like maintenance (nafaqah), will not be accepted because the difference of abode prevents the obligation of financial rights. This pertains to the first matter, which is the judicial ruling on financial rights.
As for the second matter, which is honoring parents, this is a different issue. The difference of abode does not prevent honoring and maintaining ties with parents. The evidence for this is the words of Allah (swt):
وَإِنْ جَاهَدَاكَ عَلَى أَنْ تُشْرِكَ بِي مَا لَيْسَ لَكَ بِهِ عِلْمٌ فَلَا تُطِعْهُمَا وَصَاحِبْهُمَا فِي الدُّنْيَا
"But if they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, do not obey them but accompany them in [this] world with appropriate kindness." (QS Luqman [31]: 15)
And what was narrated by Al-Bukhari from Asma bint Abi Bakr (ra), who said: "My mother came to me while she was a polytheist during the time of the Messenger of Allah (saw). I asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) for a ruling, saying: 'She is hopeful (of my favor), should I maintain ties with my mother?' He said:
نَعَمْ صِلِي أُمَّكِ
"Yes, maintain ties with your mother." (Narrated by Al-Bukhari)
As for your question regarding assaults, felonies, and the like, they have other rulings, and the difference of abode does not prevent justice being served. Rather, they are decided according to the specific Shari'ah rulings for those matters, taking into account the state of actual or constructive war, or the existence of treaties with other states, etc.
For example, the noble verse:
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 [it as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at enmity 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] - then [instead], a fast for two consecutive months, [seeking] acceptance of repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise." (QS An-Nisa [4]: 92)
You see that if a Muslim kills a Muslim by mistake in the actual Dar al-Harb—meaning from "a people at enmity with you"—the ruling is "the freeing of a believing slave." If he kills a Muslim in a Dar al-Harb that has a treaty—meaning from "a people with whom you have a treaty"—the ruling is "a compensation payment presented to his family and the freeing of a believing slave, and whoever does not find [one] then a fast for two consecutive months as repentance from Allah." Thus, financial rights differ from other matters. In fact, financial rights sometimes differ within the same Dar. For example, a Muslim does not inherit from a disbeliever, nor a disbeliever from a Muslim, even if both are in Dar al-Islam. The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:
وَلاَ يَرِثُ الْقَاتِلُ شَيْئاً
"The killer inherits nothing." (Narrated by Abu Dawood)
And he (saw) said:
لاَ يَرِثُ الْكَافِرُ الْمُسْلِمَ، وَلاَ الْمُسْلِمُ الْكَافِرَ
"A disbeliever does not inherit from a Muslim, nor does a Muslim inherit from a disbeliever." (Narrated by Ahmad)
In summary, a Muslim living in Dar al-Harb who carries its citizenship and refuses to move to Dar al-Islam (when it exists) will not have his judicial claim for financial rights against his son in Dar al-Islam accepted. This is distinct from honoring and maintaining ties with parents; a Muslim child must honor his non-Muslim parents and treat them with kindness unless they strive to make him associate partners with Allah (swt). As for matters related to that—such as if the father is fighting in the army of the actual belligerents—these have other Shari'ah rulings...
Your brother, Ata bin Khalil Abu al-Rashtah
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Facebook page
Link to the answer from the Ameer's website
Link to the answer from the Ameer's Google Plus page