C. Does the visa grant a Muslim in the lands of non-believers a promise of safety for his life, property, family, and religion?
1. The visa does not grant a Muslim a promise of safety for his life:
a. He is liable to be deported to a place where he may be tortured or killed. Many political refugees have been deported to Egypt and other places where they have been subjected to torture. Some of them are still in prison to this day.
With the writer in prison and among those who have shown agreement to what he says are some whom the country where they took refuge turned over to be tortured in Egypt. In fact, one of the brothers who were political refugees in a Western country that claims to protect political prisoners and respect human rights was interrogated by that country’s intelligence service merely because I had quoted some of his sayings in one of my speeches. They held him accountable for what he had not done and for his views, which they were allowing him to publish, despite freedom of opinion. However, when I quoted some of the things he had said, freedom of opinion went up in smoke and no trace remained of the promise of safety that the writer of the document has imagined. They threatened that brother with deportation and punishment. If the visa granted its bearer a promise of safety, he ought to have been deported to a place where he would be safe, not to a country where he would be imprisoned, tortured, or killed.
The deportee from those countries to where he will encounter torture, imprisonment, and murder has no right except to lodge a complaint with the courts. The latter see themselves alone as having the right to evaluate the matter. They do not deem that his visa protects him from that or grants him the right of insurance against deportation.
Therefore, the country that granted the visa possesses the authority to deport him or allow him to stay. The person threatened with deportation has no right except to plead with the courts that he might be tortured or killed. He simply cannot make bold to contest the deportation decision on the ground that it contradicts the promise of safe- conduct that the visa granted him, a promise that basically is not deemed to exist in Western courts.
b. Some Muslims in the West have been imprisoned. Some are still imprisoned; some are threatened with deportation to their country where they can be tortured or killed; and some have been released, but under surveillance or house arrest, a violation of whose rules will bring a return to prison. All of this takes place with no charge being brought against them. Westerners do not think that an entry visa or political asylum prevents them from taking any measure of this kind. Indeed, they think that they are free to deal with those who live among them or enter their country: it is their right to issue any laws that restrict the freedom of such people without honoring, considering, or even imagining any contract of safe-conduct. Actually, this question of a contract of safe- conduct is a figment of our imagination; the people of the West know nothing about it, and if they knew, they would ridicule it.
c. Also, a Muslim traveler, unbeknownst to him, might be wanted by a Western country in a certain case. If he goes to the country’s embassy and applies for a visa, they might give it to him without informing him of anything; and, when he arrives at their airport or port, they will arrest him. If the visa were a safe-conduct, they could not do this to him. The story of Sheikh Muhammad al-Mu’ayyad al-Yamani (may God release him from captivity) is well-known and famous: he was lured to Germany on the pretext that contributions for Hamas would be delivered to him. There he was arrested and deported to America, where he is still imprisoned. Also well-known is the story of Muhammad al- Nafi’ al-Sudani, who was lured to Germany by his treacherous in-law, the spy Jamal al- Fadl. There he was offered work as an FBI informant; when he refused, he was deported to America, where he is still imprisoned. The stories are endless.
One of the Chechen brothers who was formerly a member of Jabhat An-Nusrah in the battalion of Sayfullah Shishani writes about his decision to leave JN in the midst of the fitnah that is occuring and to join Jund Al-Aqsa who are not involved in the JN-ISIS fighting.
May Allah reward him, protect him and bless him. This is surely the right thing to do and he shows that he has the right attitude which is to maintain a love for the Ummah and to work for the Jama’ah of the Muslims, and to not partake in any fighting against other Muslims.
Take note, that the brother did not leave JN to join ISIS, probably as he knew that it would still involve fighting JN or other Muslim groups. He specifically chose Jund Al-Aqsa for the reason that they are not fighting Muslims. Let this be a lesson, because I truly hope that most of the others out there are like him, wanting to fight kufr, and not Muslims.
The brother writes:
"My good-natured and friendly attitude is taken here for a weakness
I have put up with the Jahiliyyah movement even when they spoke in a rude tone or simply ordered me about.
But I endured for the sake of Allah, and further suffer.
This is not Chechnya and they’re not running around in the mountains, here Shaytan is specifically working and the brotherhood is very weak and there is fitnah, that brotherhood that I imagined is not here at all.
I do not want to be among the Muhajir and that’s why I’m going to the Ansar.
I hope I will find there true brotherhood, and all those who are calling me spoke about the brotherhood of Jund al-Aqsa .
I do not want to participate in the fitnah or to hear about it at all.
I want to be useful to religion and to fight against Bashar.”
He later added:
"In general the reason is the fitnah between Jabhat An-Nusrah and ISIS and I do not want to be in either one of them, I’d rather be fighting in Damascus and (against) Bashar."
good example for those who play favorites and are cheerleaders.
B. If someone says that this contract arose on the basis of international agreements about visas and consular activity and what relates to these two things, the answer is clear: These agreements do not obligate us. The arguments of Sheikh Hamud al-Uqla (may God have mercy on him) and Sheikh Nasir al-Fahd (may God release him from captivity) confirm this.
Suppose someone says: “We grant you that the mujahidin are not under safe-conduct in America, either verbally or by custom. However, the mujahidin, for example the executors of the events of September 11, entered America with passports not of the Islamic emirate, but with Egyptian, Saudi, Lebanese, and UAE passports; and these countries are under safe-conduct with America.” This, too, would be an error; for Muslims in all these and other countries are in the midst of misfortunes and disasters because of America, whether they are inside it or outside.
Any Muslim who opposes America’s policy is liable to ruin and destruction not only in America but also in his own country. The death of Sheikh Abu-Ali al-Harithi (may God have mercy on him) is clear proof of this.
The writer of this document is suffering from America’s policy. He was living in a wonderful coexistence with the Yemeni regime under his real name for a period of seven years; then, when America wanted to imprison him, it imprisoned him. Yet he inverts the facts and claims that the mujahidin are the cause of his misfortunes — because they are the weaker party, and because he is seeking to ingratiate himself with the big bosses in hope of finding a way out. Actually, those supervising the publication of his document are not So-and-So Pasha and So-and-So Bey in the [Egyptian] Bureau of Investigation for National Security, but the antiterrorism experts in the American investigation and intelligence bureaus and the orientalists and experts in that apparatus.
The truth is that Muslims in America and the West or in their own countries — indeed, throughout the whole world — are not safe from America, but are in fear, dismay, and suffering because of America. It is America that has committed the most brutal of crimes against them. Even the treaties she has ratified, such as the Geneva treaties on prisoners, America has violated with the Muslims. She has tortured them and established the Guantanamo prison camp for them. Even the congressional report about the events of September 11 acknowledged this, albeit quietly.7
What relation is there between an aman and American policy?
America claims that she respects detainees’ rights and human rights. She condemns torture, arbitrary internment, and all forms of violation of human rights, while the Americans by their own admission are practicing torture against the Muslim detainees. They arrest them from any place in the world without a court order or an indictment, only by their whims. Then they imprison them for whatever periods they wish in secret prisons about which no one knows. There they practice the most brutal torture and the vilest means of extracting information. So what do promises of safety have to do with America, which is attacking Muslims and not even abiding by its signed agreements or its international commitments?
In Iraq, America alleged that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It asked the United Nations to strike Iraq. When it did not get what it wanted, it attacked Iraq itself and destroyed it, but it found no weapons of mass destruction — and this despite the fact that America holds others to account for not abiding by United Nations resolutions. America possesses an enormous stockpile of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons; however, it forbids these things to others, so that the world may remain under America’s threat. Thus Muslims and the rest of humanity are in pain, suffering, and fear of America.
What kind of customary safe-conduct is it about which the writer is talking? Then he backs it up by maxims from Islamic jurisprudence such as, “Whatever is acknowledged by custom is as that which has been specified by stipulation,” or “Custom is judge.” In fact, what is normal and customary is that all people are in fear of America, of America’s crimes, of America’s faithlessness, and of its duplicitous policies. That is the reality. Anybody who is blind to it has no right to issue fatwas or to speak about the current conditions of Muslims. Acquaintance with and understanding of reality are the cornerstone of a fatwa: a fatwa is the judgment of Islamic law regarding reality.
America gives itself the right to arrest any Muslim without examining his visa, residency permit, or passport. Here are some examples of this:
1. The kidnapping of Abu-Talal al-Ansari Tal’at Fu’ad from Croatia. Although he was carrying a Danish passport and an entry visa for Croatia, American intelligence kidnapped him and turned him over to Egypt, where no one knows his fate until now! 8
2. The incident of the jihad group members who were deported from Albania and elsewhere at the hands of American intelligence officers. These brothers were deported from Albania to Egypt, where they were subjected to torture and imprisonment. Two of them were executed: the brothers Ahmad al-Najjar and Ahmad Isma’il, may God have mercy on them. Some of them were killed in a clash with the police in Albania.
These brothers were not deported at the desire of the government of Albania — Albania was benefiting from their residence there, as they were working in relief agencies — but under pressure from America.
In fact, the Albanian judge before whom some of them appeared ordered them released because they held legal residency permits and because they had committed no crime deserving punishment. Nevertheless, American intelligence, along with Albanian intelligence, arrested them after the judge released them.
The writer of the document is well aware of this, having been sentenced to twenty-five years in prison in the same case as those brothers — the case of the returnees from Albania — and being imprisoned by virtue of that judgment in the Egyptian prisons from which he is trying to get out by denying the facts and turning a blind eye to them.
3. The kidnapping of Sheikh Abu-Hajir al-Iraqi (may God release him from prison). He was arrested a few days after he arrived in Germany with a formal visa. He had committed no violation of German laws. Indeed, the German judge told him frankly, “Your problem is with America, not with Germany!”
The incidents of Abu-Hajir and the Albanian brothers took place before September 11th, which the writer of the document alleges to have caused misfortunes for Muslims.
4. The kidnapping of Sheikh Abu-Umar from Italy and his deportation to Egypt, where he was tortured, although he was carrying a valid visa and legal residence permit.
In all these incidents and innumerable others the victims were carrying valid passports, formal visas, and sound residence permits, but that did not protect them from deportation, torture, imprisonment, and murder. Where, then, is the visa’s safe-conduct, which has no existence save in the mind of some of us?
If the Americans and Westerners give no consideration to a visa or to a passport, why should we give any consideration to it? Even if the visa were a contract of safe-conduct and they were violating it, would we not be entitled to treat them in like manner? And do so without announcement, for which I shall cite Ibn al-Qayyim, God assisting.
Assalamu aliakum , in shaAllah this series will clear up a common misconception that muslim have on “touring” in the West. Such as 9/11, Boston Bombing, etc,etc.
This series is a response to the writer of Wathiqat al-Tarshid (The Document on Guidance) that mentions that a visa is safe-conduct (aman) from the visa-granting country to a Muslim entering it. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon a Muslim to counter its safe-conduct to him with a safe-conduct from him to it; if he interferes with the wealth of that country or its people’s lives, he is a perfidious betrayer who deserves God’s threatened punishment.
A. What is the definition of a visa?
1. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 2003, in the article “Passport,” defines a visa as follows:
“Most nations require travelers entering their borders to obtain a visa, i.e., an endorsement made on a passport by the proper authorities denoting that it has been examined and that the bearer may proceed. The visa permits the traveler to remain in a country for a specified period of time.”1
2. The Encarta Encyclopedia, 2006, defines a visa as follows:
“Visa, formal endorsement placed by government authorities on a passport, indicating that the passport has been examined and found valid by the nation to be visited, and that the bearer may legally go to his or her destination.”2
3. The dictionary appendix to this encyclopedia explains the meaning of the word visa as follows:
a. noun. Definition: (1) passport insertion: an official endorsement in a passport authorizing the bearer to enter or leave, and travel in or through, a specific country or region; 3 (2) authorization: a mark of official authorization. 4
b. verb. Definition: (1) supply document with visa: to insert a visa in a passport or other document; 5 (2) give somebody visa: to provide somebody with a visa.6
Thus it becomes clear from the definition and meaning of visa that it implies no indication of safe-conduct.
4. If someone says that the safe-conduct in it does not exist on the basis of a written verbal contract but exists on the basis of a customary contract recognized by people, this statement invites an important question: Who are the parties of this contract?
Is there a contract between the mujahidin against America on the one hand and America and its allies on the other hand conveying this meaning verbally or customarily, or is the opposite the actual fact? The latter is what will become clear to the reader in detail in what follows.
“Brother Musa, there’s a combination of reasons for which they oppose the 9/11 operation or even deny Muslim involvement. There are way too many issues to get into on this subject my brother.
One of the issues is that many Muslims have a distorted, watered down and chocolate coated Aqeeda that has been fed to them by their so-called Ulama and Masheyakh.
They fear reprisal attacks against the Muslim community. I remember reading that an Imam from the US (I think it was Suhaib Webb), closed down a local Boston Masjid cancelling Jumuah there out of fear that the worshipers or the Masjid would be attacked by the Kuffar as a consequence of the Boston bombings. I found this ridiculous and this action itself pretty much sums up why these Muslims are against Jihadi operations.
There’s always been the argument from these Western Muslims that such attacks make them unsafe living in Western countries, because the Kuffar blame Muslims and Islam as a whole and there’s often a backlash against the Muslim community following such events. Then there’s the argument that it’s bad for Dawa. The two arguments are baseless and have no evidence from Shar3 to back them what so ever! These people are simply what I call ‘Candy Muslims’ who speak from their Hawwa with no knowledge of their religion. The major issue here are these so-called Aluma and Shuyukh Authubillah. They’ve become like the Jewish Rabbis in the sense that they are worshiped by their followers and they knowingly conceal the truth. They know very well what Allah says about Jihad, Khilafa etc but they try to brush these issues under the carpet or sugar coat it knowing the truth very well.
As for the conspiracy theorists - brother, I don’t laugh or smile often because Wallahi there’s not much to be happy about when Muslims are humiliated everywhere, but these conspiracy theorists do often make me smile due to their shire stupidity, particularly when they’re Muslims. They don’t even question why these conspiracies are allowed to circulate so freely? Muslim conspiracy theorists are the worst ones because their hearts lack Imaan. For example, they’ll say there was so much destruction caused by just 2 planes and the American control centers and radars failed to detect these hijacked planes etc etc so these Muslims make the assumption; “Oh well that’s impossible the government must have known something”. These Muslims have hearts that lack Imaan and they can’t understand that the impossible can be made possible by Allah! He can do whatever He wills. If Allah wanted the whole of USA to explode from one plane alone, he could easily do so and it’s Allah who gives Baseera so it may have been that he blinded the Kuffar and their systems and allowed these planes to carry out the mission successfully, did these Muslims even consider this? Of course not because they don’t understand their religion, know what Tawwakul is nor have they truly tasted the sweetness of Imaan. Their idea of Islam is finding a beautiful wife or a beautiful husband that prays, then going on endless holidays with their spouse and dining at nice restaurants and Cafes then occasionally attending stupid so-called Islamic events and fairs where everyone smiles and laughs while Muslims are slaughtered elsewhere as if happiness and security are the exclusive rights of those Muslims residing in Kuffar countries Subhanallah!”
AsSalamu Walaikum. Brothers come to the land of Emaan and Wisdom and bring victory to Allah.