RUTHFULLY YOURS

…there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that does not come from Allah. (italics added)

AMJA provided some allowances for Muslims to work in certain law enforcement professions, fearing that a lack of Muslim representation in this sector could bring negative effects for the Muslim community. They also reasoned that Muslims working as police officers might be able to use their positions to help the Muslim community, such as helping out with traffic near their mosques and protecting their mosques. Still, there was concern that some of these might be required to enforce laws contrary to the shari’a, such as “arrest[ing] a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her.”

The AMJA paper specifically forbade Muslims from working for the FBI or in national security positions, due to their alleged arbitrary targeting of certain Muslims for “their political beliefs, charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a”–an apparent reference to counterterrorism investigations against Muslim suspects.

The paper also made clear that Muslims are to seek justice not in secular courts, but in Islamic courts which are compliant with their shari’a: “It is not permissible to pursue justice in the man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out one’s grievances” (see my translation of another AMJA paper on working in the judiciary here).

Throughout the paper it is made clear that the duty of Muslims is not to uphold and respect the laws of the land in which they reside, but rather to do everything in their power to make the laws of Allah–the shari’a–supreme:

[Muslims are] to seek through legal means which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar’ia, and (not only) for personal affairs.

The duty to make Islam supreme comes above all, even preserving one’s life:

We must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self, mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. […] But if saving [the individual’s] life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth.

It is worth stressing once again that AMJA–whose stated purpose is to “clarify the rulings of the sharia which are relevant for those who live in America”–is a mainstream American Muslim organization. Their membership list contains a large number of highly-influential American imams and Muslim leaders, including Muhammad al-Majid of the Adam Center in Virginia; Hussein Hamed Hassan, director of the financial consultancy firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and other large American banking institutions; Zulfiqar Ali Shah, former president of Islamic Circle of North America and current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America; and the author of this paper, Dr. Hatem al-Haj, MD, PhD, a fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, and founder and president of “Building Blocks of Islam.”

A longer list of some of their prominent American members follows:

• Hussein Hamad Hassan (Chairman of the Board at AMJA), Director of Dar al-Sharia Legal and Financial Consultancy (Dubai) (firm which advises Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and others);
• Mohammad AlMajid, Imam of Adam Center (Virginia);
• Mohammad Naeem AlSael, University of Texas, American Open University (AOU) (Virginia);
• Waleed Basyouni, North American Imam Federation (NAIF) (Arizona), Texas Dawah Convention, AlMaghrib Institute (Texas);
• Ahmad Al Soway’ey Shleibak, Professor at AOU;
• Al Sayed Abd Al Halim Muhammad Hussein, President of Al-Eman Islamic Association of New York;
• Hatem AlHaj, Sharia Academy of America (Florida), Albert Lea Medical Center (Minnesota), NAIF, Islamic Jurisprudence Council of Minnesota;
• Abdel Azim AlSiddiq, Professor at Islamic American University (IAU), Imam/Director of Aqsa Islamic Society;
• Deya-ud-Deen Eberle, Lecturer at AOU;
• Ahmad Al Sherbiny Nabhan, Professor at AOU;
• Ahmad Abd Al-Khaliq, Imam of the Islamic Center in New Jersey;
• Gamal Helmy, Chairman of Religious Affairs in the Muslim Association of Virginia (MAV);
• Gamal Zarbozo, Islamic writer and researcher in Denver, Colorado;
• Haitham Abu Ridwan Barazanji, Imam of the Islamic Center in San Pitt, Tampa, FL;
• Ibrahim Dremali, Imam of the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, Florida;
• Ibrahim Zidan, Imam of Al-Huda Islamic Center (New York);
• Mohammad Faqih, Khateeb and Lecturer in Columbus, Ohio;
• Mostafa Tolbah, Imam of Islamic Center in Detroit, Michigan;
• Muhammad Abo Al Yosr Al Beyanony, Imam of Islamic Center in Raleigh, North Carolina;
• Muhammad Sayed Adly, President of Imams and Duat Association of South and North Carolina, Imam of Masjid Al-Muslimeen in Columbia, South Carolina;
• Muhammad Muhammad Musa, Imam of Islamic Center in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan;
• Mukhtar Kartus, Member of Board of Trustees and Daia in Islamic Center in Ann Arbor, Michigan;
• Mustafa Shahin, Lecturer at IAU;
• Mustafa Balkhir, MA student at AOU;
• Mustafa Al-Turk, Chairman of Islamic Organization, Michigan;
• Omar Shahin, President of Executive Committee of NAIF, Lecturer at AOU;
• Sadeq Muhammad Al Hassan, Director of Masjid Annur, Sacramento, California;
• Samy Muhammad Masaud, Imam of Aleman Mosque in New York City;
• Tho Al Fokkar Ali Shah (variant: Zulfiqar Ali Shah), President (Former) of Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), Executive Director of Fiqh Council of North America, Religious Director of Islamic Society of Milwaukee;
• Yassir Fazaqa, Imam of Islamic Center of Orange County, California;
• Waleed Al-Maneese, Dar-al-Farooq Islamic Center (Minnesota), Vice President of Islamic University of Minnesota, AOU, NAIF;
• Muwaffak Al Ghaylany, Islamic Center in Grand Blank City (Minnesota), Shari`a Academy in America (Florida), NAIF;
• Main Al-Qudah, MAS Katy Center (Texas), AOU, Islamic American University (Minnesota), Al-Yarmook University (Iraq);
• Salah Alsawy, Institute of Arabic and Islamic Sciences (Virginia), AOU, Sharia Academy (Florida), Al-Azhar University (Egypt), Umm Al Qura University (Saudi Arabia); and
• Muhammad Adam Alsheikh, Al Rahmah Mosque (Maryland), Sudanese courts.

Title
Page:

Assembly
of Muslim Jurists of America

The
role of professions and jobs in the West which are intermixed with that which is
forbidden: What is permissible and what is forbidden

Fifth
meeting

April
2008

Title
of the study: Working in Law Enforcement in Non-Islamic
Countries

Prepared
by Dr. Hatim al-Haj
Member
of the Permanent Fatwa Council of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists of
America
Member
of the faculty of the Shar’ia Academy

Page
2:

Eighth
Resolution: Working in the Judiciary and Everything Else Which Falls Under It
Outside the Lands of Islam

Allah
sent his Apostle and revealed His book so that the people could be established
in equity. Their path to that equity is to settle their differences through His
laws, executing them in absolute justice and rejecting all the whims of men
which conflict with them. It is not permissible to pursue justice in the
man-made (i.e. non-Islamic) judiciary, except where there is an absence of a
shari’a-compliant substitute capable of restoring one’s rights and working out
one’s grievances. (This is also on the condition that) the individual’s demands
before the judiciary are legitimate, and he does not take from its rulings
anything except that which agrees with the shar’ia. If it is decreed that he
should receive that which he has no right to (per the shari’a), he must not take
it, for the ruling of the judge cannot make permissible that which is forbidden,
nor make forbidden that which is permissible. The judge discovers (law) but does
not create it.

Islamic
communities must settle their disputes in righteousness, under the framework of
the arbitration of the shar’ia. (They are also) to seek through legal means
which exist in the countries in which they reside to make it possible for
themselves to seek legal recourse in their shar’ia, and (not only) for personal
affairs.

Working
as an attorney is legitimate as long as the attorney is convinced of the justice
and legitimacy of that which he who granted him power of attorney asks him to
do.

Page
3:

The
Study

Introduction

In
the name of Allah and praise be to Allah. We praise him and seek his aid and
forgiveness, and seek refuge in him from the sins of our souls. He who is guided
by Allah is not misled, and he who is misled has no guidance for him. I testify
that there is no god but Allah. I testify that Muhammad is his slave and
messenger. He received his message from Allah, and he fulfilled that message. He
declared to us the laws of our religion in all aspects of life, so that the
People of the Book envied us for his declaration. May Allah grant peace and
blessings to him, his family, his companions, and all those who follow his
religion until the day of judgment. Amen.

A
third of Muslims in our day live as minorities in non-Islamic countries, while
two-thirds–or most of them–live under non-Islamic regimes, even though they
live in Muslim countries.

Both
of these groups are subject to man-made laws, which don’t agree–or some of what
is in them doesn’t agree–with the Islamic shar’ia.

The
stages of working with these laws begins with legislation, which is the work of
the members of parliament or congress. Then there’s the stage of ruling by their
laws, which is the job of judges. Then there’s the stage of executing and
enforcing these laws, which is the job of the police.

These
police execute that which is incumbent upon them, and don’t have the freedom of
the judge–which is relative freedom–as it was in the early history of Islam.
So here the Muslim must ask himself if it is permissible for him to work as a
police officer under these regimes or even those non-Islamic
countries!

In
my study I will specifically deal with the issue of working as a police officer
in non-Islamic countries. I will divide the study into an introduction, in which
I will mention the current situation for Muslim communities in non-Islamic
countries. I will also describe the work of law enforcement in Western
countries, especially in the United States. Then I will lay out the pros and
cons of participating in this work. Then I will mention the general ruling on
referring judgment to law other than the shari’a of Allah. Finally I will
present evidence for making it permissible or forbidden, and I will follow this
with an assessment and a recommendation.

Page
4:

Introduction

As
stated previously, a third of Muslims live as minority communities in
non-Islamic countries, such as India, China, Russia, the countries of Europe and
the Americas, and Australia. Some of these are immigrants to these countries,
but most of them are native residents or were born there. What is shared by the
majority of them is the difficulty in emigrating from their native countries to
the land of Islam. While it has been facilitated for a few, it depends largely
on the naturalization laws of those particular countries. It is expected of all
minority communities to participate in all employment sectors, especially those
sectors in which loyalty is important, such as the military, police, judiciary,
etc.

Thus
if a particular community abstains from participating in these sectors—I’ll use
law enforcement as an example since that’s the focus of our study—it appears to
the people of that country to be a lack of loyalty from the Muslims toward their
country. This could result in their rights being encroached upon. Also, the lack
of Muslim presence in certain employment sectors makes it so that those who do
work in these sectors have less understanding of Islam and its adherents, and
thus become more alienated from them. No doubt this will result in negative
consequences for Muslims. Likewise, the absence of Muslims from these sectors
will lead to them being ignorant of what they do, and less knowledgeable of
their missions, as well as the best way to work with them. It could also result
in them committing infractions, as individuals or as organizations. On the other
hand, the presence of members of the community within this sector could lead to
the protection of the community and its members from committing these
infractions or errors which would result in negative consequences for them. One
of the benefits of participating in law enforcement which is worth mentioning is
that it could simplify some things for Muslims, such as traffic near their
mosques, protection of the mosques, etc.

Still,
there are many evils which result from working in law enforcement, the greatest
of which is compelling people to obey rulings which do not come from Allah. It
could also cause reverence and love for these rulings to enter the heart of the
police officer, and perhaps spread to the hearts of his family members and other
Muslims who see him at the mosque or even Muslims in general. They could lose
conviction of governance by Allah, and become pleased with a legal system that
does not come from Allah. It is one thing to acquiesce to it and take heed to
not violate it in order to defend themselves and their societies against harm,
and to preserve the reputation of their religion and their people. However, it
is another thing to be pleased with it and show reverence for it in opposition
to the shari’a of Allah. One of the evils of this job is that the worker could
give up many of his convictions of the shari’a, and commit many sins such as
mixing with that which is forbidden [i.e. mingling with females]–which happens
often in this employment sector–being alone, and other sins. One of the evils
present in many sections of law enforcement is spying on people–both Muslims
and infidels–which leads to a decrease in loyalty among individuals of the
community and adds suspicion between them. This is more so in the work of
investigative detectives than with other job categories.

Page
5:

The
General Ruling on Ruling by Other Than That Which Allah Revealed

Ruling
by other than that which Allah revealed is a great evil. Allah Almighty said:
“And this (He commands): Judge thou between them by what Allah hath revealed,
and follow not their vain desires, but beware of them lest they beguile thee
from any of that (teaching) which Allah hath sent down to thee. And if they turn
away, be assured that for some of their crime it is Allah’s purpose to punish
them. And truly most men are rebellious” [Qur’an 5:49].

He
also said: “O David! We did indeed make thee a vicegerent on earth: so judge
thou between men in truth (and justice): Nor follow thou the lusts (of thy
heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of Allah: for those who wander
astray from the Path of Allah, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the
Day of Account” [Qur’an 38:26].

He
also said: “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance? But
who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better judgment than Allah?”
[Qur’an 5:50] and “If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath
revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers” [Qur’an 5:44].

Whoever
has brought (into the community) the sin of ruling by other than that which
Allah revealed vacillates between being pleased with a legal system which is not
the shari’a of Allah and substituting it for the shari’a. His action is either a
greater infidelity [kufr
akbar]
which is outside the pale of Islam, or it is done out of ignorance or lust or
passion, or due to a misinterpretation or a minor error, with the conviction
that the shari’a of Allah is the wisest and best legal system, and that he is
compelled to carry it out. Thus his action [to rule by other than that which
Allah revealed] is one of the greater sins.

These
are the words of scholars on whoever brought in this sin:

Imam
Abu-Muhammad ‘Ali Ibn Hazim al-Andalusi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “No
two Muslims disagree that whoever rules by a ruling of the Gospel [i.e.
Christianity] which was not prescribed by divine revelation in the shari’a of
Islam is an infidel and polytheist, and is outside the pale of
Islam.”

The
Shaykh of Islam Abu-al-’Abbas Ahmad bin ‘Abd-al-Halim bin Taymiyya (may Allah
have mercy on him), said: “When a man makes permissible that which is
forbidden, or makes forbidden that which is permissible, or substitutes another
shari’a (for the shari’a of Allah), all scholars are in agreement that he is an
infidel.”

Page
6:

Isma’il
bin ‘Umar bin Kathir (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the
saying of the Almighty “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of)
ignorance? But who, for a people whose faith is assured, can give better
judgment than Allah?”[Qur’an 5:50]: “The Almighty rejects those who depart from
His rulings–which include all that is good, and forbid all evil–and turn
toward the opinions, fancies, and conventions put in place by men, without
relying on the shari’a of Allah, as the people in the days of ignorance used to
rule…and as the Tatars ruled, with the rulings taken from their king, Gengis
Khan, who put in place al-Yasiq
for them…For whoever does this is an infidel who must be fought against until
he returns to the rule of Allah and His Apostle and does not rule by anything
else, great or small” [ellipses in original].

Ahmad
Shakir (may Allah have mercy on him) said in his commentary on the saying of the
Almighty “Do they then seek after a judgment of (the days of) ignorance?”
[Qur’an 5:50]:

“With
this in mind, can it be permissible in the shari’a of Allah for Muslims to
govern in their countries by legislation which is adapted from European
legislation … changing and substituting it as they will, indifferent to whether
it agrees or conflicts with the shari’a of Islam? … Regarding these man-made
laws, it is as the clear as the noon-day sun that it is outright infidelity.
There is no excuse for anyone who belongs to Islam, whether they work with these
laws, are subjected to them, or have consented to them. Every man must warn
himself, and every man is accountable for himself. But the scholars must openly
declare the truth, undaunted, and tirelessly preach that which they have been
commanded to preach” [ellipses in original].

Shaykh
Muhammad bin Ibrahim Al al-Shaykh (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It is
clearly greater infidelity [kufr
akbar]
to give cursed law the status of what was revealed by the true spirit to the
heart of Muhammad (peace be upon him). (Muslims) have been warned, in the plain
Arabic tongue, against ruling among the people by (cursed law), and referring to
it to settle disputes, which is contrary to the saying of Allah Almighty: “If
ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if
ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best, and most suitable for
final determination” [Qur’an 4:59]. Almighty Allah has denied the faith of those
who do not refer judgment in their disputes to the Prophet (peace be upon him),
even repeating this denial clearly in an oath. The Almighty said: “But no, by
the Lord, they can have no (real) Faith, until they make thee judge in all
disputes between them, and find in their souls no resistance against Thy
decisions, but accept them with the fullest conviction” [Qur’an
4:65].

Shaykh
Muhammad al-Amin al-Shanqiti (may Allah have mercy on him) said on his
commentary of the saying of the Almighty, “Verily this Qur’an doth guide to that
which is most right (or stable)” [Qur’an 17:9]:

Page
7:

“Verily
this Qur’an doth guide to that which is most right (or stable). Its declaration
is that following any other law besides that which was brought by the son of
Adam, Muhammad bin ‘Abdallah (peace be upon him), in order to follow opposing
laws is utter infidelity, and marks departure from the Islamic community and
faith. The infidels said to the Prophet (peace be upon him): ‘If a sheep is
dead, who killed it? He responded, Allah killed it. They said to him, What is
sacrificed by your hands is permissible, but what is sacrificed by the holy hand
of Allah, you say that it is forbidden! Are you, then, better than Allah?’ Allah
revealed the following concerning them: “Eat not of (meats) on which Allah’s
name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever
inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would
indeed be Pagans” [Qur’an 6:121]. The deletion of the words ‘for verily’ from
His saying “ye would indeed be Pagans” indicates that there is a deleted oath …
If the sentence were an answer only for the condition which came before it, it
would have been combined with the ‘for verily’. … For it is an oath from Allah
Almighty, by which He swore that whoever follows Satan in making permissible
(the eating of dead meats) is a polytheist, and this polytheism is a departure
from the Islamic community and faith, by the consensus of all Muslims” [ellipses
in original].

Now
the last category of those who contradict the shari’a of Allah–after having
agreed that it is the most perfect and best, and that it is compulsory upon its
followers–includes (those who do so out of) ignorance, lust, bribery, or
injustice. These cannot be termed infidels, and their action is not quite a
major sin. For Allah has termed sin to be infidelity, and unlike the last
(category), neither Allah nor His Apostle have termed this to be infidelity. Ibn
‘Abbas conveyed this in his commentary on the saying of the Almighty, “And
whoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed – then it is those who are the
disbelievers” [Qur’an 5:44], when he said, “It is not the disbelief
[kufr]
that you are thinking about.”

This
is right, for he was talking to them about reality; there was no substituting
the shari’a of Allah (intentionally), but rather they ruled by something else to
satisfy their desires, extend their influence, and conquer their subjects.
Perhaps policemen do not enter into the first category as long as they prefer
the shari’a of Allah and the impermissibility of referring to judgment to
another law. But policemen in Muslim countries which are not ruled by Islam did
not alter the shari’a of Allah and cannot refer people to it. So this is the
question: Does taking this job place them in the second category, or is it
permissible for them to do so as the lesser of two evils?

Page
8:

Categories
of Law Enforcement Officers in the United States of America

To
answer the previous question, we must provide a quick presentation of the
different types of law enforcement occupations.

Municipal
police currently perform the following functions in order to enforce the
law:

1. Mounted patrols
2. Respond to distress
   calls or serve the citizens
3. Direct traffic when
   there are car accidents
4. Investigate forced
   robberies
5. Perform first aid on
   accident victims
6. Many of them are placed
   in a specific area to communicate with residents to prevent crime
7. Identify suspicious
   behavior, follow and arrest the criminals
8. Enforce traffic
   law

Police
officers in colleges, universities, schools, and public transportation vehicles
are types of police officers who specialize in enforcing the law in certain
locations. Some of them are detectives, and most of them are dressed like police
officers.

Some
law enforcement officers specialize in :

1. Chemical and microscopic
   analysis
2. Training for law
   enforcement work and the use of weapons
3. Identifying
   fingerprints
4. Quick response units (to
   defuse bombs, for example)
5. Units on horseback or
   bicycles
6. Preserving the
   order/schedule and security of the political leader

State
police officers:

The
head police officer (the sheriff) is normally elected, and with the help of
aides supervises the activities of municipal police.

Page
9:

State
police officers engage in the following activities:

1. Arrest criminals in all
   areas of the state
2. Highway patrols for
   (enforcing) the law and keeping the peace
3. Assist accident
   victims
4. Municipal and county
   police may assist them as needed

Detectives,
analysts, and investigators do not dress like police officers. They engage in
the following activities:

1. Gather evidence of
   crimes
2. Some of them specialize
   in combating certain types of crime
3. Pursue criminals and
   arrest them

Hunting
and fishing police:

1. Enforce laws related to
   hunting and fishing on land and in the sea, and drive boats
2. Offer assistance to
   those who need it
3. Write up letters of
   complaint and incident reports

Officers
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI):

These
are the detectives and investigators who work for the federal government. Their
work includes investigating, following up, and preparing cases criminals and
law-breakers for more than a hundred different types of crimes which are termed
‘federal’, or those which concern the entire nation and federal authority rather
than state authority. These include national security crimes. They engage in the
following:

1. Perform investigations
   and surveillance of suspects
2. Eavesdrop on their
   communications
3. Go after work crimes and
   fraud in large companies
4. Pursue violations
   committed by municipal and state police officers
5. Pursue cases of bribery
   and financial and administrative corruption
6. Pursue cases of
   terrorism and espionage
7. Pursue crimes which
   cross state boundaries
8. Drug-smuggling
   cases
9. Bank robberies
10. Airplane
    hijacking
11. Kidnapping
12. Violation of civil
    rights

Page
10:

Police
officers who combat narcotics and illegal medicines belong to the DEA, and they
specialize combating narcotics both inside and outside of the United
States.

Judicial
police (Marshalls):

They
specialize in protection, security, service, and facilitating the activities of
judges and courts, including protecting witnesses and jurors, and transportation
of federal criminals.

The
police from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives specialize
in enforcing laws relative to crimes connected to these items.

Police
in the Department of State:

Their
work includes preserving the security of diplomats and combating terrorism. They
work inside and outside the United States, where they offer support to
embassies. Inside the United States they follow up on cases of passport fraud,
and also protect the security of people in diplomatic missions.

Homeland
Security police:

Beneath
them are Customs and Border Patrol, Immigration [ICE], and Special
Operations.

Police
who protect airplanes (Air Marshalls) do not dress like police officers and ride
on various flights in order to preserve security onboard.

Police
officers from Secret Service:

They
protect the President, Vice President, and candidates for president as well as
their families. They also protect important persons from other
countries.

The
mission of mail police is to protect the mail system.

Police
for public parks and forests maintain security, control violations, and care for
public parks and forests.

Page
11:

Prisons
police:

Most
of them are placed in state or federal prisons, where they maintain security
inside the prisons, and prevent fighting between the prisoners.

Page
12:

Evidence
Against Working in Law Enforcement in Non-Islamic Countries

1.
We have already mentioned all the evidence for it being forbidden to rule by
other than the shari’a of Allah, and that whoever does so, either as ruler or as
prosecutor, is an infidel, whether it is greater infidelity or lesser
infidelity. Nor is the police officer exonerated from being the executor of the
judgments of those rulers, and enforcer of a law which does not come from
Allah.

It
could be argued that man-made laws are not all the same. Some of them agree with
the intent of the shari’a, such as traffic laws which save lives and money.
There are also some which do not conflict with the shari’a, such as preserving
forests and preventing the killing of certain types of animals, as well as some
administrative laws in companies which could fit under the category of those
interests which Allah has left open for man. However, it can also be said that
some of the laws conflict with the shari’a, and there is no alternative but for
the police officer to enforce them, and punish those who violate
them.

It
could still be argued that for the last category, this does not disqualify every
type of police officer. There are some who specialize in combating narcotics,
chemical analysis, taking fingerprints, protecting mail or forests, and other
areas which do not require them to enforce law which is contrary to the shari’a
of Allah. This is so even though all of these professions subject the worker to
at least a few offenses.

2-
Cooperating with sin and aggression: The police officer could participate in
building a case against a Muslim who is oppressed or has been arbitrarily
targeted by the authorities for one reason or another. Islamic communities in
the West have discussed many examples of these arbitrary cases being brought
against their individuals and institutions.

Allah
Almighty says: “Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not
one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment”
[Qur’an 5:2]. However, those who lead the affairs of the police could be agents
and helpers of either the oppressors or the oppressed; they are not
equal.

Shaykh
al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya said:

“He
who is appointed to sin and aggression is he who helps the oppressor, while he
who helps the oppressed to lighten the oppression from him is an agent of the
oppressed, not the oppressor. He does not carry the same status as the one who
lends him money or authorizes him to take the money from him to the oppressor.
An example of this is a guardian to an orphan and (the orphan’s) endowment. If
an oppressor came and asked him for money (from the orphan), and he strove to
pay less money–either paid to him or someone else–after exerting all effort to
pay, then he was merely doing good, and there is nothing wrong with doing good.
Also an agent of a landlord, from among the heralds, writers, or others, who
grants them authority to make contracts, seize (property), and pay what is
required of them–(the agent) does not give authority to oppressors to take it
for them.
Likewise
if an injustice were committed against the people of a village, school, market,
or city, and if a man mediated to pay on their behalf as well as he could, and
divided it amongst them to the degree they were able without favoring himself or
anyone else, and without taking bribes, but acted as an agent for them to make
payment, then he was doing good. However, most of the time when someone performs
that kind of work he acts as an agent of oppressors, accepting favors and
bribes, to protect whomever they want to protect and take from whomever they
want to take. This is one of the greatest evils of those who will be gathered in
coffins of fire. They are their agents and are like them, and will likewise be
taken and cast into the fire.”

Page
13:

As
the Shaykh al-Islam said, most of those who seek these jobs want money and
prestige, not to make truth victorious or aid the oppressed.

3-
Spying is forbidden in the shari’a when the person is not charged with anything,
as Allah said: “O ye who believe! Avoid suspicion as much (as possible): for
suspicion in some cases is a sin: And spy not on each other behind their backs”
[Qur’an 49:11].

If
there is no evidence of wickedness from the person, then he should not be spied
on. However, many Muslims in those communities may be spied on because suspicion
and distrust have seized those placed in charge of the affairs of these
communities. They eavesdrop in mosques, homes, cars, and various communications
devices.

4-
There is clear evidence from the sunnah on the prohibition of working as a
police officer for oppression and evil-doers.

A-
The saying of (Muhammad) (peace be upon him) in the hadith of Abi-Hurayra as
narrated by Muslim: “The Apostle (peace be upon him) said there are two
categories of the people of the Fire which I have not seen. The first have whips
like the tails of cattle, with which they beat people. The second are women who
are naked despite being dressed. They will be led astray and lead others astray.
They have heads like camel humps. They will not enter the Garden, nor will they
even experience its scent, even though its scent can be smelled from such a
great distance.”

B.
Also the hadith (of Muhammad): “Rulers will come unto you, who will work great
wickedness, and will delay the prayers from their appointed times. Whoever among
you perceives this, must not be corporals, policemen, collectors, or treasurers
with them.”

C.
Al-Tabrani narrated in al-Saghir
and al-Awsat
from Abi-Hurayra (may Allah have mercy on him) that the Apostle of Allah (peace
be upon him) said: “In the last days, there will be princes of darkness, evil
ministers, treasonous judges, and lying jurists. Whoever among you in that day
perceives this, must not be collectors, corporals, or policemen with
them.”

Page
14:

However,
he who ponders these sayings finds that they warn Muslims against a certain
reality in which evil will be widespread in the land of Islam. The evil will be
assisted by some people to conquer the others. There is no doubt that ruling by
that which Allah did not reveal is evil in and of itself, but the evil which
these sayings refer to is not synonymous with disbelief in Allah [kufr],
but rather it is different from it. Do you not perceive that the Apostle (peace
be upon him) described the Negus as being just? He did not rule by the shari’a
of Allah, but the shari’a of his people, which was distorted Christianity.
Disbelief in Allah and evil are different in this respect, even though disbelief
in Allah is a type of evil, and evil is a branch and fruit of disbelief in
Allah.”

Wherefore,
Imam Ibn Taymiyya says: “Allah will make the just nation victorious, even if it
is an infidel (nation). He will not make the wicked nation victorious, even if
it is a believing nation.” Therefore justice and disbelief in Allah can be
combined in some aspects, but not all. The observer can see that in the Western
countries there is justice among individuals which has no equal in Islamic
countries. Perhaps this is denied out of obstinacy, but Muslims should not do
this.

The
policeman who works in an Islamic nation which has these rulers who advance
iniquity, contributes to the deterioration and decline of that Islamic nation
with his work. This is not a generalization on the work of policemen in every
Islamic country, and in every sector of law enforcement. Meanwhile on the other
hand, the one who works (as a policeman) in an infidel nation, Allah through his
work might lift some harm from the Muslim community. What you find is that
scholars have been influenced (in their thinking) on law enforcement by some
grievances which occurred in the Umayyad and ‘Abbasi eras, which alienated many
scholars from these jobs.

5-
Suffice it to say that among the violations (of the shar’ia) which occur in this
sector are those which are present in various employment sectors in the West and
are even often present in the Muslim East. These include reckless mingling
(among the sexes), being alone, and so forth. But perhaps these are some of the
things which distinguish the work of law enforcement from other
occupations.

Page
15:

Evidence
of Permissibility

Perhaps
those who make it permissible to work in law enforcement–except in its rarest
forms–do so under the pretext that it is the lesser of two evils, and not under
the pretext of ‘unrestricted interests’ [al-maslaha
al-mursala]
or that which comes above them. Thus we will lay out these rules, after which we
will relate the evidence from the Qur’an, Sunnah, and actions of the Salaf
regarding entering the work of law enforcement.

The
principle of committing the lesser of two evils is one of the great principles
of the religion of Islam, which bridges the gap between the ideal and reality.
The one who employs this principle is able to favorably deal with every reality
in which he lives, and turn every situation into what is most beneficial to the
slaves (of Allah), and most pleasing for their righteousness.

Imam
Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The shari’a came so that good
may be acquired and perfected, and so that evil may be obstructed and
diminished. On this wise, the lesser of two good things is hindered so that the
better of the two can be acquired, and the lesser of two evils is committed so
that the worse of the two can be avoided.”

Imam
al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “That which is forbidden (but
necessary) may be committed if it is done for a valid purpose.”

Al-‘Az
bin ‘Abd-al-Salam and others who are beyond doubt expressed similar ideas. There
is no doubt that this principle is based on evidence from the shari’a, and is
according to divine wisdom, for good and evil intertwine and overlap in this
world as often as things are purely good or purely evil. Likewise al-Khadir both
burned the ship and killed the boy for a valid purpose [see Qur’an
18].

The
Messenger of Allah permitted al-Hajjaj bin ‘Alat to speak poorly of him and
disparage him so that he could recover his money from the people of Mecca, even
though disparaging (the Prophet) (peace be upon him) is disbelief in Allah
[kufr].
There are many examples of this in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

We
must remember that preserving the religion comes before preserving one’s self,
mind, wealth, honor, or offspring. For Allah has legitimized fighting, and even
commanded it in certain occasions, which carries with it the possibility of
death and squandering of wealth. Al-Shatibi himself, who offered the previous
quote, was also the one who said:

“It
is legitimate to acquire good for oneself, but the evils which are warded off
must be considered in terms of establishing this life in place of the next life,
not in terms of the passions of the soul in obtaining its regular benefits, or
warding off its regular evils. This is supported by the
following::

“First–Allah-willing,
that which has been stated will come to pass, that the shari’a came to remove
Muslims from the desire to fulfill their own passions, so that they can become
slaves of Allah. If this is true, then it does not jive with the assumption that
the shari’a has been set in place in accordance with the passions of the soul,
to demand its immediate benefits no matter what they are. Our Lord has said:
“If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the
earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption!”
[Qur’an 23:71].

“Second–The
above means that the benefits gained for the Muslim are normally marred by the
negative effects that are caused, just as the negative effects are surrounded by
some benefits. We also say that life of an individual must be respected and
preserved, so that if you had to choose between preserving its life and losing
its money, or losing its life and preserving its money, then preserving its life
comes first. But if saving its life destroys Islam, then saving Islam comes
first, even if it means the individual is destroyed. This is the case with jihad
against the infidels, and the killing of apostates, and so forth. Likewise if
saving one life would destroy many lives, such as in combat, for example, then
saving many lives comes first.”

Page
16:

Ibn
Taymiyya gave an example of this with the saying of Allah Almighty:
“Remembrance of Allah is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt” [Qur’an
29:45]. He clarified that forbidding obscenity and vice is good, but remembering
Allah is greater, for that is a purpose unto itself, which takes
precedence.

Page
17:

Consideration
of the Consequences

Researchers
among the Islamic scholars must take into account the consequences of actions. A
fatwa which does not take consequences into account is deficient, as al-Shatibi
(may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Considering
the consequences of actions is to consider the intent of the shari’a, whether
the actions agree with it or oppose it. This is because the mujtahid
does not make a ruling on any action, whether to go ahead with it or to refrain
from it, until after he has considered the end result of this action. It could
be legitimate due to the good that induced it or the evil that prevented it,
however the end result might be the opposite of the intent. It could be
illegitimate due to the evil which gave rise to it, or the good which pushed it
away, but the end result could be opposite of the intent. If the first action
were called legitimate, but then the evil it caused ended up being as great or
greater than the good, that would prevent it from being called legitimate. On
the same wise, if the second were called legitimate, but it ended up driving
away as much or more evil than it caused, then it would not be correct to call
it illegitimate. This can be a difficult situation for the mujtahid,
although it is enjoyable to produce favorable outcomes which are in line with
the spirit of the shari’a.”

There
is no doubt that these words reside in the glorious light of the shari’a, for
did not the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) stop rebuilding the house on
the foundations of Abraham so that it would not cause fitna
for the Quraysh? Did he not also stop the killing of the hypocrites, who were
deserving of it, so that people would not say that Muhammad kills his
companions? Under this pretext, Imam Ibn Taymiyya forbade his companions from
banning the drinking of wine for the Tatars, for the drinking of wine did not
prevent them praying and remembering Allah, but it did prevent them from killing
the innocent and stealing their property.

There
still remains another question, which is: Does working in law enforcement, with
its violations (of the shari’a) and its compelling people to follow another law
besides the shari’a of Allah–in some of its occupations–fall under this
category?

The
answer, according to those who believe it is permissible, is yes, and their
evidence for that is as follows:

1-
The story of Joseph (peace be upon him) and his working as a minister to
Pharaoh, of which Imam Ibn Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him)
said:

“…Political
authority–whether it is permissible, recommended, or obligatory–is within the
right of the man appointed to this power to change it to be more obligatory or
more recommended. For at that time he decides what is best, sometimes obligatory
and sometimes recommended. along this vein, Joseph the Faithful took charge of
the treasury of the land for the king of Egypt.

Page
18:

But
the problem was that he was placing (Joseph) over the treasury of the land,
while he and his people were infidels, as the Almighty said: “And Joseph had
already come to you before with clear proofs, but you remained in doubt of that
which he brought to you, until when he died, you said, ‘Never will Allah send a
messenger after him.’ Thus does Allah leave astray he who is a transgressor and
skeptic” [Qur’an 40:34]. It is well-known that even though they were infidels,
he had to serve as the tradition and the law for them in taking their money and
distributing it to the king’s entourage, family, soldiers, and subjects. That
was not in accordance with the Sunnah and the justice of the prophets. Joseph
could not do everything he wanted to, and was not believed to be of the religion
of Allah, so the people did not respond to him. However, he wrought as much
justice and goodness as he could, and the king honored the believers from his
house, which would not have happened otherwise. All of this falls under the
saying (of Allah): “So fear Allah as much as you are able” [Qur’an
64:16].

However,
the inference from the story of Joseph (peace be upon him) is not free from
opposition, for some scholars make the condition that the worker must be free to
control how he comports himself, even as he works for the oppressor or
licentious man. Some of them do not think at all, for it includes aiding the
oppressor. They interpret this based on what it says in Surat Yusuf [Qur’an 12]
that he was an agent for the king with regards to his money, not his kingship.
Some even refer to the saying that Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous. On this wise,
Imam Qurtubi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“Some
scholars have said: In this verse [Qur’an 12:55] it permits a righteous man to
work for a wicked man, and an infidel ruler, on the condition that he is granted
authority to act without opposition, and he works according to that which he
desires. However, if his employment were according to the choice of the wicked
ruler and his wicked desires, then that would not be permissible. People say
that ‘This was a special situation for Joseph, but today it is not permissible.
It would be (permissible) if it were according to the conditions we mentioned.
Allah knows best.’

Al-Mawardi
said: “In the case where the master is wicked, people have differed on whether
it is permissible to rule under him. The following two opinions are present:
First, (it is permissible) if he has the right to control his own work within
that which he is entrusted. For Joseph ruled under Pharaoh, and his work was
determined by his own actions, not by the actions of another. Second, it is not
permissible, for it includes rendering aid to oppressors, and endorsing them by
assuming their tasks. Those who are of the first opinion respond to this by
saying, first: Joseph’s Pharaoh was righteous, and Moses’ Pharaoh was wicked.
Second, (Joseph) looked after his possessions, not his actions, for his
liability did not extend past his possessions.”

Al-Mawardi
said: “What is more correct than either of these two opinions is to separate
what is entrusted to the individual into three categories. First, what is
permissible for his people to do without any ijtihad,
such as giving alms and paying the charity tax. For it is permissible to take
responsibility for this work from the oppressive ruler, because the text
stipulating its worthiness is clear enough that no ijtihad
is necessary. It is permissible for people to do this on their own, without
needing to resort to the opinion of any doctrine or school of thought. The
second category includes that which is not permissible to do on its own, and
which requires the use of ijtihad
in its application. An example is the taking of booty, for it is not permissible
to take responsibility for this from the oppressive ruler. Therefore this
(category) cannot be applied except to (cases) which are deserving of it. The
third category includes those tasks which it is permissible for him to delegate
to his people. There is an opening here for ijtihad,
such as court cases and rulings/judgments, for the contract (to delegate the
power) is dissolved. If the authority delegated was merely to execute the ruling
between those who consent, or mediate between those who are compelled, then it
is permissible. But if it was to compel by force it is not
permissible.

Page
19:

Perhaps
it will be noted that the comments of this group of scholars on injustice and
immorality seem obvious. Our situation, for the most part, is not like that, as
it’s been presented. The truth is that what the Shaykh al-Islam said is the
closest (to our situation), for Joseph (peace be upon him) was not the absolute
arm (of Pharaoh). Doctor ‘Ali Muhammad al-Suwa said:

“The
king had an appointed system and law, as evidenced by the saying of the
Almighty: ‘He could not have taken his brother within the religion of the king
except that Allah willed’ [Qur’an 12:76]. The society was also polytheist, and
continued in its polytheism after Joseph, as evidenced by the saying of the
Almighty: ‘But you remained in doubt of that which he brought to you’ [Qur’an
40:34]. It is clear that Joseph was not in complete control of the government.
He was not even in complete control of the treasury, for the king had personal
expenses which Joseph was not permitted to interfere with. The society had a
custom and tradition for collecting funds, and spending them on the king’s
entourage, family, and subjects. The tradition was not in accordance with the
shari’a and the justice of the prophets, nor was Joseph able to do everything he
wished, according to what he believed from the religion and justice of
Allah.”

Abu-al-’Ala
al-Mawdudi (may Allah have mercy on him) agreed with this interpretation, and
inferred from it that it was permissible to take upon oneself various positions
of political authority in a non-Islamic government. He (may Allah have mercy on
him) even went so far as to say that the political authority was a communal
obligation in certain circumstances. (He argued that) it was not appropriate to
disagree with this interpretation simply because Joseph was under a different
shari’a which came before ours. For if the issue was related to faith, disbelief
in Allah [kufr],
oneness of Allah [tawhid],
or polytheism, there is no doubt that the religion of the prophets was one and
the same on these issues.

In
that respect, Shaykh ‘Abd-al-Rahman ‘Abd-al-Khaliq said:

“There
is no evidence in the Qur’an or the Sunnah for saying that it is not permissible
under the shari’a to take upon oneself political authority in infidel
governments. The Qur’an and the Sunnah in fact say the opposite. For Joseph
(peace be upon him), who was a noble prophet, took upon himself the
responsibility over the treasury of the land in Egypt, which was a position
similar to working in the ministry of finance today. Even though he was under a
different shari’a which came before ours, there is nothing in our shari’a which
would conflict with his. Yes, the Prophet (Muhammad) (peace be upon him) refused
for Muslims to be tax collectors or police officers under unjust imams. But this
should not be applied except where there is evidence to justify it. (It must be
explained) that he forbade Muslims from being tax collectors to unjustly collect
revenue from the people for the ruler. He also forbade police officers from
beating the people in order to take their money, for there is no obedience to a
creature in disobedience to the Creator.”

Page
20:

2
– The Story of the Negus

It
was transmitted from Jabir (may Allah be pleased with him) that, “The Prophet
(peace be upon him) said upon the death of the Negus: ‘A righteous man has died
today, now go and pray for your brother Usahma’.”

(The
Prophet) (peace be upon him) attested in this story of the righteousness of the
Negus and prayed over him, even though he was king of an infidel nation, in
which he ruled by other than that which Allah revealed. On this wise Imam Ibn
Taymiyya (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

“The
Negus was not able to rule by the rulings of the Qur’an, for his people would
not agree to that. Often a man among the Muslims or the Tatars will become a
judge or even an imam, and will have some good and just things that he wants to
do, but he is unable to do them, or he is prevented from doing them by someone.
Allah does not burden any soul beyond its capacity. ‘Umar bin ‘Abd-al-’Aziz was
treated with great hostility for some of the justice and reforms which he put in
place. It was said that he was poisoned for that reason. The Negus and others
like him are happy in Paradise. If they did not comply with the laws of Islam,
it was because they were unable to do so. Instead, they ruled by the judgments
they were able to put in place.”

Therefore
if it was permissible for the ruler to rule by other than the shari’a in that
case in a non-Islamic country in which he was unable to rule by the shari’a,
then it is all the more permissible to execute these rulings.

Page
21:

3-
The hadith of ‘Abd-al-Rahman bin ‘Awf, in which the Messenger (peace be upon
him) said: “I witnessed with my cousins a pact which was so excellent that I
would not wish to break it even for a herd of red camels.”

This
shows that the Prophet (peace be upon him) under Islam did not want to break a
pact which was made in the days of ignorance [i.e. before Islam] because it
defended the oppressed. Most of the police work done in non-Muslim countries is
to aid the needy, defend those who have been hurt in spirit and body, crack down
on organized crime, etc.

Page
22:

Assessment:

From
examining the different views and evidences, it appears that on this issue there
are two sides and one middle area.

The
first side: It appears to me that it is impermissible for one to work for the
FBI or for national security with the harm they inflict on Muslims who are
arbitrarily targeted by the government because of their political beliefs,
charity work, or some of their convictions under the shari’a. The work of these
agencies includes spying on these Muslims and others, as well as eavesdropping
on their homes, cars, communication devices, and even their mosques, without any
clear charges. It is prohibited by the shari’a for Muslims to participate in
these activities, which lead to increased suspicion among members of the
(Islamic) community as well as the weakening of their ties of faith and loyalty.
All of this comes of evil, which is worse than whatever ill effects I see in
abstaining from involvement in these activities.

But
the other side refers to occupations such as those working with
counternarcotics, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), the Post
Office, national parks, forests, and fisheries, or even in prisons as well. All
of this appears to be permissible.

The
middle area includes working as municipal, state, and county police. These might
have to arrest a Muslim man whose wife said he ‘raped’ her or forced her. These
and similar incidents, though rare, do happen.

It
is this middle area which requires one, with consideration and precision, to
judge between two evils, and toss out the greater evil for what is probably the
lesser evil. The Islamic community should leave this task to (scholars) who are
firm in the knowledge of (these subjects), and then proceed according to their
opinions.

Allah
knows and judges best.