Отдел безопасность, Отдел внешних связей, Отдел Промышленности ( 70-74)
- Категория: Отдел безопасность, Отдел внешних связей, Отдел Промышленности ( 70-74)
Статья 72: Угрозой для внутренней стабильности, которую устраняет отдел внутренней безопасности, является: отступление от Ислама, бунт против государства, грабеж, насилие над личностью, нанесение телесных повреждении, убийство, унижение чести и достоинства и сотрудничество с подозрительными лицами, которые шпионят в пользу неверных и врагов
Article 72: The most prominent issues that threaten the internal security that are under the responsibility of the Department of Internal Security to treat are: apostasy, rebellion and banditry, attacks on people’s wealth, attacking people and their honour and co-operating with the people of suspicion who spy for the belligerent disbelievers.
The function of the Department of Internal Security is to protect the internal security of the State and the actions which could lead to a threat to internal security are many including:
Apostasy from Islam, rebellion against the State manifested in destructive activities and actions of sabotage such as strikes or the occupation of vital centres of the State, and aggression against private, public, or State property. It might also be through rebellion against the State by use of arms.
Other actions which undermine internal security include banditry, in other words, highway robbery, and attacking people to rob their wealth and killing them.
Similarly, the attack on the property of people by theft, looting, robbery, misappropriation, as well as attacks on people through assault, injuring, and killing, in addition to attacks on their honour through lying, slandering and rape.
One of the other tasks of the Internal Security Department is to deal with suspicious people and protecting the Ummah and the State from their danger and harm.
These are the most important actions that could threaten the internal security. The Department of Internal Security protects the State and the people from all these actions. Therefore, whoever is declared an apostate, and is sentenced to death if he did not repent, then this department executes the death sentence. If those who declare apostasy are a group, then they have to communicate with them and ask them to return to Islam, and the State should not punish them if they repent, return to Islam and abide by the Shari’ah rules. If however, they insist on apostasy, then they are fought against. If they are small in number and the police force alone is able to fight against them, then they must proceed to do so, but if they are large in number and the police force is unable to overpower them, then they have to request the Khalifah to provide them with additional military force to help them. If this military force is not sufficient, then they must ask the Khalifah to order the Army to provide them with assistance.
This is concerning apostates. However, in regards to people who rebel against the State, if they do not use arms and limit themselves to destruction and sabotage by strikes, demonstrations, occupation of vital centres of the State, along with aggression against private, public and State properties through demolition, then the Internal Security Department restricts itself to using the police force in order to prevent such destructive actions. If it is not able to prevent the aggression, it requests the Khalifah to provide it with a military force in order to stop the destruction and sabotage from those who rebelled against the State.
However if the people who rebel against the State use weapons and were able to establish themselves in an area and became a force that the Department of Internal Security is unable to subdue, and it was unable to eliminate through the use of the police force alone, then it requests the Khalifah to provide it with a military force or an army force, depending on its need in eliminating the rebellion. Before it fights against them, the department should communicate with them to see what complaints they may have. It should ask them to return to obedience and the Jama’ah and to surrender their arms. If they respond favourably and return back, then the State should hold back from fighting them. If they reject and insist on rebelling, then it fights against them in order to discipline them and not to annihilate and destroy them. It fights against them, so that they turn back to obedience and give up rebellion and surrender their arms.
In regards to those that use violence, such as the highway robbers, who attack people, forcibly obstruct the highways, steal property and kill, the Department of Internal Security will dispatch a police force to pursue them and impose the relevant punishment upon them, which may be killing and crucifying, amputating their opposite limbs or deporting them to another place, according to the verse:
((إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَنْ يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنْفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ))
“Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land.” (TMQ 5:33).
The fighting against these people is not like fighting against rebels who fight against the State. Fighting against the rebels is to discipline them while fighting against the highway robbers is to kill and crucify, so they are fought against when they fight and when they turn back. They are treated as outlined in the verse. Whoever killed and took property, he is killed and crucified; and whoever killed and did not take property, he is killed but not crucified; and whoever took property without killing, his hand and leg will be amputated from opposite sides without killing; and whoever raised arms and scared the people and did not kill or take property, he is only exiled from his area to another place or country far away from the State.
The Department of Internal Security restricts itself to using the police force in maintaining security. It does not use other than the police force except when the police force is unable to maintain internal security. In that case, it requests the Khalifah to provide it with a military force or an army, according to what is required.
With regards to aggression against property by stealing, misappropriation, robbing or looting; or aggression against lives by use of force, wounding or killing; or aggression against honour by lying, slandering, or rape, the Department of Internal Security prevents these things by its vigilance, guards and patrols, and also by implementing the verdicts of the judges against those who perform aggression against the property, lives and honour. All this requires the use of the police force alone.
The police are entrusted with keeping the public order, supervision over the internal security and carrying out all aspects of implementation. This is due to the mentioned narration from Anas who reported that the Messenger used to keep Qays Ibn Sa’d before him like a police chief. This indicates that police are stationed before the rulers, which means they undertake whatever the rulers want of the execution force for implementing the Shari’ah, keeping order and protecting security. This is in addition to conducting patrols, which involves patrolling during the night to pursue thieves and arrest wrongdoers and the wicked. ’Abd Allah b. Mas’ud (ra) was a leader over the night patrols at the time of Abu Bakr (ra). Umar bin Al-Khattab (ra) used to take charge of night patrols by himself, taking his servant in his company and sometimes ’Abd Al-Rahman b. ’Awf (ra). Therefore, it is wrong that some Islamic countries make the owners of the shops appoint guards at night to guard their houses, or appoint guards given by the State at the cost of the owners of the shops. This is because this work is part of the night patrolling which is the duty of the State and of the functions of the police. So, people are not charged with it and nor charged with its costs.
With regards to dealing with the suspicious people who are the people that pose harm and danger to the State entity, to the community or to the individuals; these types of suspects must be pursued by the State. Whoever, from the Ummah has knowledge of any of these must report it. The evidence for this is what Al-Bukhari and Muslim reported from Zayd b Arqam when he said:
«كُنْتُ فِي غَزَاةٍ، فَسَمِعْتُ عَبْدَ اللَّهِ بْنَ أُبَيٍّ يَقُولُ: لاَ تُنْفِقُوا عَلَى مَنْ عِنْدَ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ حَتَّى يَنْفَضُّوا مِنْ حَوْلِهِ، وَلَئِنْ رَجَعْنَا مِنْ عِنْدِهِ لَـيُخْرِجَنَّ الأَعَزُّ مِنْهَا الأَذَلَّ، فَذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِعَمِّي أَوْ لِعُمَرَ، فَذَكَرَهُ لِلنَّبِيِّ فَدَعَانِي، فَحَدَّثْـتُهُ ...»
“While I was taking part in an expedition (Ghaza), I heard `Abdullah bin Ubai (bin Abi Salul) saying: "Don't spend on those who are with Allah's Propherصلى الله عليه وآله وسلم, that they may disperse and go away from him. If we return (to Medina), surely, the more honorable will expel the meaner amongst them." I reported that (saying) to my uncle or to `Umar who, in his turn, informed the Prophetصلى الله عليه وآله وسلمof it. The Prophet called me and I narrated to him the whole….”. In the narration by Muslim,
«فأتيتُ النبيَّ فأخبرتُه بذلك»
“I came to the Prophet and informed him of that”. Ibn Ubay was well known for going back and forth to the disbelievers who were at war with the Muslims, and his relations with them such as those with the Jews around Madinah and the enemies of Islam. Here, it is required to closely examine upon the context of this example so as not to mix it with espionage on the citizens, which is prohibited due to His (swt) saying:
((وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا ))
“And spy not on each other.” (TMQ 49:12); therefore, spying is only limited to the suspects.
The suspicious people are those who go back and forth to the belligerent disbelievers, either practically or in terms of their ruling (in other words, potentially), and that is because spying is allowed on the belligerent disbelievers as part of the war policy, and for preventing harm from falling upon Muslims. Additionally, the Shari’ah evidences in this subject include all the belligerent people. This is because if they were actual belligerents, then the obligation of spying on them is quite clear. If they were potential belligerents, then spying on them is allowed for war is expected with them at any time.
Thus any citizen that frequently visits the warring disbelievers would be under suspicion due to his contact with those we are permitted to spy on, in other words, the belligerent disbelievers.
The details of this issue will be as follows:
1) Spying on the actual belligerent disbelievers is obliged upon the State; a matter which, besides the above mentioned evidences, is emphasised by the rule:
(ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب)
“that, without which the obligation cannot be accomplished, is itself an obligation.”
This is because the knowledge of the force of the enemy, its plans, its objectives and its strategic locations and the like are necessary to defeat the enemy. This is undertaken by the War Department, and it includes the citizens that make contact with the actual belligerent disbelievers, since in origin there is not usually contact between the citizens and the belligerents, as the relation between them is a relation of war.
2) Spying on the potential belligerent disbelievers is allowed; and it is obligatory upon the State to prevent any harm, such as, when it is feared they would help the actual belligerents or join them. The potential belligerent disbelievers are of two types:
- The first: The potential belligerent disbelievers in their country whom the War Department would spy on, and it would be the War Department who was responsible for spying upon them.
- The second: The potential belligerent disbelievers that enter our country, such as the ambassadors, the covenants and their like. These have to be put under observation and spying by the Internal Security Department.
The Department of Internal Security takes charge of surveillance and spying on the citizens who frequently visit the officials amongst the potential belligerent disbelievers or their representatives in our country. The War Department also takes charge of the citizens who frequently visit the officials amongst the actual belligerent disbelievers or their representatives in their own country. This however requires two conditions:
- The first: There should appear clear evidence through surveillance, carried out by the War Department and Internal Security of the officials amongst the potential belligerent disbelievers or their representatives that the frequent visits to these disbelievers or their representatives, inside or outside the State, are not natural and attract attention.
- The second: Whatever is discovered by the two departments has to be presented to the judge of Hisbah; and then the judge of Hisbahrules upon the matter.
If such a case arises then it is allowed for the Department of Internal Security to spy on those citizens that make such frequent visits to the officials amongst the potential belligerent disbelievers or their representatives in our country. It is also permitted for the War Department to spy on the citizens that make frequent visits to the officials amongst the potential belligerent disbelievers and their representatives in their own country. These are the evidences related to all of this:
1) Spying on Muslims is Haram as stipulated in this verse. Allah (swt) says:
((وَلَا تَجَسَّسُوا ))
“And spy not on each other.” (TMQ 49:12)
This is general prohibition of spying and it has to continue as general unless there is specific evidence. This is confirmed by the narration reported by Ahmad and Abu Dawud with a chain from Al-Miqdad and Abu Umamah when they said:
«إِنَّ الأَمِيرَ إِذَا ابْتَغَى الرِّيبَةَ فِي النَّاسِ أَفْسَدَهُمْ»
“The Messenger of Allah said: When a ruler seeks to make imputations against the people, he corrupts them.”. Therefore, spying on a Muslim is prohibited. This rule also applies on the people of the Dhimmah from the citizens of the State. Thus spying is prohibited upon the citizens, Muslims and non-Muslims.
2) Spying on actual belligerent disbelievers, such as those who are at war with us and on the potential belligerent disbelievers, such as those who enter our country with covenant or under our protection like ambassadors and others, or the actual belligerent disbelievers in their own country, is allowed. It is in fact obligatory to spy on the actual belligerent and on the potential belligerent in case of harm.
The evidences are clear in the lifeof the Messenger of Allah , which are as follows:
• It was reported in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham about the expedition of ’Abd Allah b. Jahsh (ra), where he ordered him to travel for two days without opening the letter he wrote for him. After ’Abd Allah b. Jahsh (ra) travelled for two days he opened the letter of the Messenger of Allah and read it. It read
«إِذَا نَظَرْتَ فِي كِتَابِي هَذَا، فَامْضِ حَتَّى تَنْزِلَ نَخْلَةً بَيْنَ مَكَّةَ وَالطَّائِفِ، فَتَرَصَّدْ بِهَا قُرَيْشاً، وَتَعَلَّمْ لَنَا مِنْ أَخْبَارِهِمْ»
“If you read this letter of mine, travel till you reach Nakhlah between Makkah and Ta’if where you observe Quraysh movement and collect their news for us.”
It was reported in the Sirah of Ibn Hisham regarding the events of the battle of Badr that Ibn Ishaq said:
«رَكِبَ رَسُولُ اللهِ هُوَ وَأَبُو بَكْرٍ رضي الله عنه حَتَّى وَقَفَ عَلَى شَيْخٍ مِنَ العَرَبِ، فَسَأَلَهُ عَنْ قُرَيْشٍ وَعَنْ مُحَمَّدٍ وَأَصْحَابِهِ وَمَا بَلَغَهُ عَنْهُمْ، فَقَالَ الشَّـيْخُ: لاَ أُخْبِرُكُمَا حَتَّى تُخْبِرَانِي مِمَّنْ أَنْتُمَا؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ إِذَا أَخْـبَرْتَنَا أَخْبَرْنَاكَ. قَالَ: أَذَاكَ بِذَاكْ؟ قَالَ: نَعَمْ. قَالَ الشَّيْخُ: ... وَبَلَغَنِي أَنَّ قُرَيْشاً خَرَجُوا يَوْمَ كَذَا وَكَذَا، فَإِنْ كَانَ الَّذِي أَخْـبَرَنِي صَدَقَنِي، فَهُمُ الْيَوْمَ بِمَكَانِ كَذَا وَكَذَا لِلْمَكَانِ الَّذِي فِيهِ قُرَيْشٌ، فَلَمَّا فَرِغَ مِنْ خَبَرِهِ قَالَ: مِمَّنْ أَنْـتُمَا؟ فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ نَحْنُ مِنْ مَاءٍ، ثُمَّ انْصَرَفَ عَنْهُ، قَالَ يَقُولُ الشَّـيْخُ: مِنْ مَاءٍ، أَمْ مِنْ مَاءِ العِرَاقِ؟ ثُمَّ رَجَعَ رَسُولُ اللهِ إِلَى أَصْحَابِهِ، فَلَمَّا أَمْسَى بَعَثَ عَلِيَّ بْنَ أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَالزُّبَيْرَ بْنَ العَوَّامِ وَسَعْدَ بْنَ أَبِي وَقَّاصٍ فِي نَفَرٍ مِنْ أَصْحَابِهِ، رِضْوَانُ اللهِ عَلَيْهِمْ، إِلَى مَاءِ بَدْرٍ يَلْتَمِسُونَ الْخَبَرَ عَلَيْهِ، أَيْ عُـيُوناً عَلَى قُرَيْشٍ»
“The Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr rode till they met an Arab sheik. He asked him about Quraysh, and Muhammad and his companions, and about anything he might know. The sheikh said: I will not tell you till you tell me from where you are? The Messenger of Allah said, if you tell us, we will tell you. He said, is this for that? He said: yes. The Sheikh said: … I was told that Quraysh had left on such and such day. If one who informed me said the truth, then they would be in such and such place. When the sheikh finished his news, he asked: where are you from? The Messenger of Allah said: from water, and turned away from him. He said: the sheikh was asking: from water or from the water of Iraq? Then the Messenger of Allah returned to his companions. When night fell, he sent ’Ali Ibn Abi Talib, Zubayr Ibn Al-’Awwam and Sa'd Ibn Abi Waqqas together with some of his companions (may Allah be pleased with them) to the Water of Badr to seek the news from there; in other words, to spy upon Quraysh”
• Ibn Ishaq also reported that Ibn Hisham mentioned under the title: “Basbas Ibn Amr and ’Uday Ibn Abu Al-Zaghba' spy for news”, till he said, “’Uday and Basbas heard that (meaning: heard that which the two maids said at the Water regarding the news of Quraysh). So, they jumped onto their two riding camels and went to the Messenger of Allah where they informed him of that which they heard”.
Though these evidences were regarding Quraysh, which was an actual belligerent, the rule applies to the potential belligerent since war is expected with them. The only difference is that spying is obligatory in the case of the actual belligerent because the war policy for defeating the enemy requires that. It is however allowed regarding the potential belligerent because war is expected with them. If there is possible harm from them, in other words, it is expected they might help the belligerent or actually join them, then spying on them becomes obligatory as well.
Thus, spying on the belligerent disbelievers is allowed for Muslims and obligatory upon the State to provide. This is due to the order of the Messenger of Allah to do so as mentioned above. It also comes under the rule:
(ما لا يتم الواجب إلا به فهو واجب)
“that, without which the obligation cannot be accomplished, is itself an obligation”.
If some citizens, whether Muslims or non-Muslims, frequently visited the belligerent disbelievers, whether they were actual or potential belligerents, in our country or in their country, then these are suspects and hence it is allowed to spy on them and follow their news. This is because they frequently visit those whom it is allowed to spy on and because harm is expected from them on the State if they spied for the advantage of the disbelievers.
However, to allow spying on such citizens, the above mentioned two conditions must be verified, and so if those two conditions were not met, then it is prohibited to spy upon the citizens irrespective of whether they were Muslims or from the people of Dhimmah due to the explicit texts regarding that which have been mentioned previously.
The War Department takes charge of spying on the citizens that frequently visit the actual belligerent, as well as on the citizens that frequently visit the officials amongst the potential belligerent and their representatives in their own country. The Department of Internal Security takes charge of spying on the citizens that frequently visit the officials amongst the potential belligerent disbelievers and their representatives in our country.