It is absolutely forbidden for any individual, party, group or association to have relations with a foreign state. Relations with foreign countries are restricted to the State alone because the State has the sole right of governing the affairs of the Ummah practically. The Ummah can account the State regarding foreign relations.

Its evidence is the words of the Prophet :

.» الإِمَامُ رَاعٍ وَهُوَ وَمَسْؤُولٌ عَنْ رَعِيَّتِهِ «.

“The Imam (ruler) is a guardian and he is responsible for his subjects” (reported by Al-Bukhari from ‘Abd Allah (swt) b. Umar), and the Shari’ah gave the practical undertaking of the governing of the affairs which would be binding to the ruler alone, and so it is not permitted for the subjects to carry out the actions of the ruler and it is not permitted for any of the Muslims to carry out the actions of the ruler unless they were appointed to do that according to the Shari’ah, either through a pledge of allegiance from the people if he was the Khalifah, or by appointment from the Khalifah, or from one of his assistants or governors whom had given the right to make appointments. Anyone who had not been appointed through the pledge of allegiance, and had not been appointed by the Khalifah, is not permitted to undertake anything from the practical governing of the affairs of the Ummah, domestically or internationally.

It is imperative here that this rule is clarified from the angle of the evidence, and the reality upon which the evidence applies. As for the evidence, the authority has been given by the Shari’ah to the ruler alone and governing the people has been left to the ruler alone; the Messenger (pbuh) said:

. مَنْ كَرِهَ مِنْ أَمِيرِهِ شَيْئًا فَلْيَصْبِْْ عَلَيْهِ، فَإِنَّهُ لَيْسَ أَحَدٌ مِنْ النَّاسِ خَرَجَ مِنْ ال سلْطَانِ « » شِبْرًا فَمَاتَ عَلَيْهِ إِلاَّ مَاتَ مِيتَةً جَاهِلِيَّة .

“Whoever dislikes a thing done by his leader (Amir) should be patient over it, for anyone from the people who withdraws (his obedience) from the government, even to the extent of a handspan and died in that conditions, would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahilliyya.” (agreed upon from the narration of Ibn ‘Abbas), and so it made rebellion against him rebellion against the authority, and consequently in that case he is the one who alone possesses the authority. The Messenger (pbuh) said:

. كَانَتْ بنَُو إِسْرَائِيلَ تَسُوسُهُمْ الأَ نْبِيَاءُ، كُلَّمَا هَلَكَ نَبِِ خَلَفَهُ نَبِِ ، وَإِنَّهُ لا نَبَِِّ « » بعَْدِي، وَسَيَكُونُ خُلَفَاء .

“Banu Isra'il were ruled over by the Prophets. When one Prophet died, another succeeded him; but after me there is no Prophet and there will be Khulafaa'” (agreed upon from the narration of Abu Hurayrah), and its meaning is that the Muslims are ruled by the Khulafaa’, and, therefore, the one who rules the Muslims has been specified. The understanding from this is that other than the Amir would not be an authority and that other than the Khulafaa’ do not rule. This is evidence that the governing of the affairs is for the ruler alone and not for anyone else. Additionally, the action of the Messenger (pbuh) shows that he was the authority, and undertook the ruling of the people with it by his characteristic of being the Head of State, and he was the one who appointed whoever would undertake the actions of authority or the actions of ruling the subjects. So he appointed the one who would take his place in Madinah whenever he went out for any of the battles, and he appointed the governors, judges, money collectors, and whoever undertook an interest such as distributing water, estimating the amounts of fruit (for tax purposes), and so on. This is all evidence that the authority and ruling the people is restricted to the ruler, in other words, to the Khalifah and whoever the Khalifah appointed, to the Amir and whoever the Amir appointed. The authority is the governing of the affairs of the people that is binding upon them, and ruling the subjects is reported in the words of the Messenger (pbuh) : “were ruled by”, which is the governing of the people that is binding upon them. Built upon this is that governing the affairs of the people is a binding governance; in other words, the undertaking of the responsibility of the ruler is restricted to the ruler, and so it is completely forbidden for anyone else to undertake it, since the Shari’ah gave the authority and looking after people’s affairs to the Khalifah and whoever he appoints. So if anyone other than the Imam or those appointed by him carries out the actions of ruling and authority, and takes upon themselves ruling the people, their action contradicts the Shari’ah and is considered to be void, and every void action is forbidden (Haram), and so it is not permitted for anyone other that the Khalifah or who he appointed, in other words, other than the ruler, to undertake any action of ruling and authority. Consequently, he does not undertake the governing of the affairs of the people in a binding manner, in other words, he does not rule the people, since this is from the actions of the ruler and it is not permitted for anyone other than the ruler to carry it out.

This is from the angle of the evidence; as for from the angle of the reality, the undertaking of governing some of the affairs in a binding manner by a group is from the understanding of the democratic rule. The democratic rule is made up of institutions, the highest of which is the cabinet, in other words, the government, but there are others who carry out governing some of the affairs in a binding manner, or in other words, undertake ruling in some particular area. For example, there are unions, so the lawyers’ union undertakes governing the affairs of the lawyers in their professional capacity, and this is binding upon them and so they have authority over them in specific issues; it grants them the right to practise law and signs off on any punishments upon them, and sets up a retirement fund for them, and other things that are from the actions of ruling and authority which the State appointed to it in regards to the legal profession, and its judgement is implemented just like the judgement of the cabinet without any difference. This is the same with the doctors’ union and the rest of the unions. This is the reality upon which the evidence applies with respect to within the State. Internationally, some of the democratic countries permit the opposition party to communicate with other states, and gives it the right to conduct negotiations with those states while it is not ruling, and it has agreements with other states regarding issues connected to the relationships between the two states that they will implement once they get into power. This is the reality upon when the evidence applies with respect to international affairs.

Therefore, this reality which is that some institutions such as syndicates undertake governing some of the affairs domestically in a binding manner, and some institutions such as the political parties undertake some of the affairs internationally in a manner which is binding, is not at all permitted by Islam. This is because the authority and undertaking ruling of the people has been given to the Khalifah or Amir alone, or to whom the Amir or Khalifah appointed, and so it is not permitted for anyone else to undertake a single issue from it since this would contradict the Shari’ah.

Additionally, undertaking the governing of the affairs in a manner that is binding is a governorship over the people, and governorship is a contract that must be concluded between two sides, either between the Ummah and the Khalifah, or between the Amir and the Ummah who appointed him, or between the Khalifah or Amir and who they appointed. Whoever undertakes the governing of the affairs without a contract of governorship, then his action is invalid, and every invalid action is forbidden (Haram) without any difference. Therefore, undertaking the governing of the affairs in a manner which is binding would be invalid, and from this understanding it is forbidden for political parties and individuals in the Ummah to have any relationship with any foreign state in which that relationship would include what would be considered as undertaking the governing of an issue from the issues of the Ummah in a binding manner, and this is the evidence for this article.