۲۶.۱ د کفر له دارې څخه د اسلام دارې ته هجرت

۲۶.۱ د کفر له دارې څخه د اسلام دارې ته هجرت - اسلامي شخصیت | Quran Course

His statement «together» came in a manner that includes a reason, and the reason was the prohibition of turning [grapes] into wine. This means that the conquest of Makkah is the reason for negating the hijra, which means that the ruling revolves around its reason in existence and in absence. Nor is it restricted to Makkah, but rather the conquest of any land, by the evidence of another narration: «There is no hijra after the conquest». This is strengthened by what al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha (ra), who was asked about the hijra and said: «There is no hijra. The believer would flee with his deen to Allah (swt) and His Messenger ﷺ for fear of being persecuted. As for today, Islam has become dominant, and the believer worships his Lord wherever he wishes.» This indicates that the hijra was obligatory upon the Muslim before the conquest, fleeing with his deen out of fear that he would be persecuted. It was negated after the conquest, as he became able to display his deen and perform the rules of Islam. So the conquest, which resulted in that, became the reason for negating the hijra; and it is not the conquest of Makkah alone. Therefore, it means there is no hijra after the conquest from the land which was conquered. His ﷺ statement to Safwan, «it has ended», means from Makkah after it was conquered, since hijra is leaving the land of disbelievers, the Dar al-Kufr. So if the land is conquered and becomes Dar al-Islam, it no longer remains a land of disbelievers or Dar al-Kufr, and hence hijra no longer remains. Similarly, there remains no hijra from all conquered lands. This is strengthened by what Ahmad narrated through the route of Muawiya, who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah ﷺ saying:

His statement “together” came in a way including reasoning so the reason was the prohibition of making into wine. This means that the conquest of Makkah is the reason for negating the emigration which means that the reason revolves around the reasoned (matter) in existence and absence, nor is it specified to Makkah but rather conquering any land by the evidence of another narration “no emigration after conquest.” This is strengthened by what Al-Bukhari narrated from Aisha (ra) who was questioned about the emigration and said: “There is no emigration. The believer would flee with his deen to Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saw) for fear of being persecuted. As for today, Islam has become dominant and the believer worships his Lord wherever he wishes.” This indicates that the emigration was upon the Muslim before the conquest fleeing with his deen fearing he would be persecuted. It was negated after the conquest as he become able to show his deen and perform the rules of Islam. So the conquest which resulted in that became the reason for negating the emigration; nor is it the conquest of Makkah alone. Therefore that means there is no emigration after conquest from the land which was conquered. His (saw) statement to Safwan “it has ended” means from Makkah after it was conquered since emigration is leaving from the land of disbelievers and the Dar al-Kufr, so if the land is conquered and becomes Dar al-Islam it no longer remains a land of disbelievers or a Dar al-Kufr so emigration no longer remains. Similarly there remains no emigration from all conquered lands. This is strengthened by what Ahmad narrated via the way of Muawiya who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (saw) saying:

ددې ټولو خبرو موخه د دار الکفر په اړه ده، یعنې هغه ځمکه چې د جنګ ځمکه ده، که څه هم د هغې اوسیدونکي مسلمانان وي یا کافران، ځکه د ځمکې حکم د اوسیدونکو له مخې نه بدلیږي، بلکې د هغه نظام له مخې بدلیږي چې په هغې حکومت کوي او د هغه امنیت له مخې چې خلکو ته ورکړل کیږي. له همدې امله په دې کې د اندونیزیا او قفقاز ترمنځ هیڅ توپیر نشته، نه د صومالیا او یونان ترمنځ. یوازې هغه کس مستثنی دی چې د خپل دین د ښکاره کولو او غوښتل شوي شرعي احکامو د تطبیق توان ولري، په دې حال کې هغه کولی شي د هغه دار الکفر چې ورې اوسیږي، په دار الاسلام بدل کړي. په دې حالت کې هغه ته د دار الکفر څخه دار الاسلام ته هجرت کول حرام دي. دا حکم یو شان دی که دا توان په ځان کې وي، یا د هغه ځمکې په مسلمانانو کې د هغه د ډلې جوړښت له مخې وي، یا د بهر مسلمانانو له مرستې په غوښتلو سره، یا د اسلامي دولت سره په همکارۍ سره، یا د کومې بلې لارې له مخې. په هغه باندې واجب دی چې دار الکفر د دار الاسلام په بدلولو کې کار وکړي، او په هغه وخت کې د هغې څخه هجرت هغه ته حرام دی. دلیل دا دی چې که په هغه ځمکه کې چې هغه ژوند کوي کافران اوسیږي او د کفر له مخې حکومت کیږي، نو مسلمانانو باندې واجب دی چې د هغې خلکو سره جګړه وکړي تر هغه چې مسلمانان شي یا جزیه ورکړي او د اسلام له مخې حکومت وشي. دا هم د هغه په مسلمان کیدو او د کافرانو سره د نږدې کیدو او دښمن ته د نږدې خلکو له جملې څخه په توګه په هغه باندې واجب دی. که هغه چا چې په هغې کې اوسیږي مسلمانان وي او د اسلام پرته بل څه، یعنې د کفر د نظام له مخې حکومت کیږي، نو مسلمانانو باندې واجب دی چې د هغوی د واکمنانو سره جګړه وکړي تر هغې چې د اسلام له مخې حکومت وکړي. دا هم په هغه باندې واجب دی د هغه مسلمان په توګه چې د کفر له مخې حکومت کیږي. نو په هر حال کې جګړه په هغه باندې واجبه ده او د جګړې چمتو والی هم، که هغه توان ولري. د هغه مسلمان حال چې د دار الکفر کې ژوند کوي، له دې دوو حالتونو څخه بهر نه دی، یعنې هغه یا د هغو کسانو څخه دی چې پر دوی د هغو کافرانو په وړاندې جهاد فرض دی چې ورسره نږدې دي، یا د هغو کسانو څخه دی چې پر دوی د کافر حکم کوونکي حاکم سره جنګ فرض دی. د دې دوو حالتونو کې، د دار الکفر څخه چې د اسلام پرته، یعنې د کفر سره حکم کوي، هغه د ځان ایستل، لکه د هغه ځای څخه تښتیدل چې پر هغه کې جهاد فرض دی، یا د هغه چا څخه تښتیدل چې د کفر سره حکم کوي، دواړه د الله (سبحانه و تعالیٰ) په وړاندې لوی ګناهونه دي. له همدې امله، هغه څوک چې د دار الکفر د دار الاسلام په اړولو توان لري، د هغه څخه هجرت جائز نه دی ترڅو چې هغه د دار الاسلام په اړولو توان ولري؛ دا حکم په ترکیه، هسپانیه، مصر او البانیا کې همداسې دی، د دوی ترمنځ هیڅ توپیر نه دی، څومره چې دوی د کفر په نظام حکم کېږي.

All this is in relation to Dar al-Kufr i.e. a land of war as it is irrespective of its residents being Muslims or disbelievers since the rule of the land does not differ according to the residents but rather differs by the system which it rules with and the security by which its people are secured. Accordingly there is no difference between Indonesia and the Caucasus or between Somalia and Greece. Except for the one able to manifest his deen and perform the requested Shar’a rules where he is able to change the Dar al-Kufr wherein he resides to Dar al-Islam; it is forbidden for him in this situation to emigrate from Dar al-Kufr to Dar al-Islam. This is the same whether he possesses the ability himself or his group structure with the Muslims in his land or by seeking assistance of Muslims outside his land or by cooperation with the Islamic State or any (other) means. It is obligatory upon him to work to make Dar al-Kufr into Dar al-Islam and at that point it is forbidden for him to emigrate from it. The evidence for this is that if there reside disbelievers in the land within which he lives and is ruled by kufr, it is obliged upon Muslims to fight its people until they become Muslims or pay the jizyah and be ruled by Islam. This is also obliged upon him in his attribute as a Muslim and in his consideration as one whom the disbelievers are next to and of those who are closer to the enemy. If those residing therein are Muslims and they are ruled by other than Islam i.e. by the system of kufr, it is obliged upon Muslims to fight their rulers until they rule by Islam. This is also obliged upon him in his consideration as one of the Muslims who is ruled by kufr. So in any case, fighting is obliged upon him and preparing for fighting if he is capable of it. The situation of the Muslim who lives in Dar al-Kufr does not go out of one of these two situations, so he is either of those upon whom jihad is obliged against the disbelievers near him or of those upon whom fighting the ruler ruling by kufr is obliged. In these two situations, it is considered that his leaving the Dar al-Kufr which rules by other than Islam i.e. by kufr as fleeing from the jihad from a place wherein it is obliged upon him or fleeing from fighting the one who rules by kufr, both of which are great sins before Allah (swt). Accordingly it is not allowed for the one capable of changing Dar al-Kufr into Dar al-Islam to emigrate from it as long as he possesses the capability to change it into Dar al-Islam; this is the same in Turkey, Spain, Egypt and Albania without difference between them as long as they are ruled by the system of kufr.