OnIslam.net

Muslims' Affiliation to a Non-Muslim Country

Conditions of Affiliation to a Non-Muslim Country

Duties of the Muslim in a Non-Muslim Country

When National Duties Contradict Religious Rulings

Duties of Muslim Citizens Living in Europe

Religious Duties

Contrariety Between Religious and Legal Duties

Military Service

Rights of Muslim Citizens Living in Europe

Right to Political Participation

Islamic Arguments for Political Participation

Refutation of Opponents' Objections to Political Participation

Muslims' Affiliation to a Non-Muslim Country

This indicates that a Muslim is allowed to live under a non-Muslim authority if such authority does not oppress him. Historians relate that a revolution erupted against Negus (the emperor of Ethiopia) and the Muslim immigrants offered to fight by his side against the rebels, but he refused. This means that it is permissible for a Muslim to give his loyalty and support to a non-Muslim authority as long as this remains within legal rights.

There are many other incidents in Islamic history when millions of Muslims faced oppression in their non-Muslim countries, yet they refused to leave their countries. Some of these countries embraced Islam and others did not. It should be noted that one-third of the Muslim population worldwide still lives as minorities under non-Muslim authorities. It is worth mentioning here that when a person embraces Islam, he or she is not required to emigrate from his non-Muslim country. The majority of jurists agree that emigration for such a person is not a religious duty, but only permissible. According to circumstances, however, emigration in such a case can be obligatory or even prohibited.

Conditions of Affiliation to a Non-Muslim Country

Some conditions are required for the permissibility of a Muslim's affiliation to a non-Muslim country. These conditions are as follows:

1. The country must not be unjust to the Muslim. This condition is based on the Prophet's saying to his Companions, when he ordered them to immigrate to Abyssinia, that it was governed by "a king under whose authority no one would be oppressed." It is also based on the verse in which Almighty Allah says,

(And those who fly for Allah's sake after they are oppressed.) (An-Nahl 16:41)

This verse indicates that emigration is permissible for whoever is oppressed in his country and that he is allowed to stay therein, if he faces no oppression.

(Yet surely your Lord, with respect to those who fly after they are persecuted, then they struggle hard and are patient, most surely your Lord after that is Forgiving, Merciful.) (An-Nahl 16:110)

It is indicated in this verse that a Muslim is allowed to emigrate from his own country, if his faith is subject to trials there. But, if no trial is faced, it is permissible for him to stay.

Duties of the Muslim in a Non-Muslim Country

The religious duties required from a Muslim living in a non-Muslim country, where he or she is not wronged or put to trial, are to live with other people by Islamic morals, to cooperate with them in whatever is necessary or permissible, to deal with them justly, even if it is against himself, to comply with the obligations he undertakes in a way that does not contradict his religious freedom and duties. A Muslim also must not betray the society where he lives or the country to which he belongs. Betrayal is never permissible.

When National Duties Contradict Religious Rulings

On the other hand, if he chooses to fulfill his national duties, he may be committing a sin, as far as his religious duties are concerned. However, he may be considered in a state of necessity or coercion and thus be forgiven by Almighty Allah.

Although the contradiction between national duties and religious rulings is very 

When a Muslim becomes a citizen within a European state, he or she is subjected to many questions, starting from the legality of this citizenship to how far he or she should be committed to its rights and duties. The legality of a Muslim's citizenship in Europe has been confirmed above, as all European states are committed to the UN Charter and all human rights declarations. Therefore, Muslims are not normally persecuted, even though they may suffer from some acts of harassment. As mentioned earlier, emigration today is not obligatory and probably not even desirable, but it is simply permissible.

Duties of Muslim Citizens Living in Europe

Religious Duties

I will not tackle all the religious duties shared by all Muslims, from performing the acts of worship to adhering to the rulings of the lawful and the unlawful in all life affairs. I will rather talk about the most important duties required from a Muslim as a European citizen.

First, a Muslim has a duty toward others, especially in a non-Muslim state, which is calling to Allah. This is regarded as a collective duty, according to the majority of Muslim scholars. Almighty Allah says,

(Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation.) (An-Nahl 16:125)

Calling to Almighty Allah in non-Muslim states requires the existence of laws that protect the freedom of callers and shield them from harm. Another requirement is that Muslims be an effective force in society so as to be able to protect and defend callers to Islam.

Second, a Muslim living within non-Muslim societies has a duty to fight corruption and seek reform in every possible field. That is why one of the advices Shu`aib gave to his people was (Anddo not diminish to men their things, and do not make mischief in the land after its reform) (Al-A`raf 7:85). Almighty Allah gives the same command to Muslims: (And do not make mischief in the earth after its reformation) (Al-A`raf 7:56).

Contrariety Between Religious and Legal Duties

When a Muslim decides to live in a European country as a citizen, he or she has thus committed himself to the duties of this citizenship, which include participation in everyday life, dealing with people according to the applied laws and submission to all measures taken by governing authorities. A Muslim can commit himself to most of these duties without any problems. But, what should he or she do if the required duty is deemed unlawful according to the Shari`ah?

In fact, this real problem is not restricted to Muslims living in a non-Muslim state only, but it also faces Muslims living in and belonging to Muslim countries. It is well-known that most Muslim countries, to varying degrees, are not committed to the application of Shari`ah. Some are even very close to non-Muslim countries in this regard. For example, just as hijab is banned in some secular countries, it is also banned in a number of Muslim countries. Another example is the imposition of secular marriage upon Muslims in some Muslim countries, just as it is imposed in some European countries.

In both cases, a Muslim should try to bring about reconciliation as much as possible. If he could dispose of the legal duty in a legal way, this would be good. If he could not, however, the shar`i ruling of necessity would apply, and he would thus be excused, for Almighty Allah says, (Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability) (Al-Baqarah 2:286).

This being the case, a Muslim may also stand against the law and bear the

In case the benefit is much greater than the damage, we should attain the benefit in order to avoid a possible greater damage. And if benefit and damage are on the same level, one may choose between the two (Qawa`id Al-Ahkam fi Masalih Al-Anam, by Al-`Izz ibn `Abdus-Salam ).

A Muslim constitutes a positive factor in the society in which he lives; he seeks to develop the good things in society and to rectify bad situations; he promotes virtue and forbids vice, invites people to the way of Allah, has a normal everyday life in harmony with Allah's will, and interacts with others and accepts to engage in dialogue with them on controversial matters. Also, a Muslim cooperates with people in all that pleases Almighty Allah and abstains from doing anything that displeases Him. He interacts with people socially and politically with the purpose of reforming the society in which they live, spreading the spirit of tolerance, promoting human values and establishing justice.

In this regard, a Muslim is to be guided by the Prophet's instruction in which he gave an example of the person who abides by Allah's teachings and the one who does not. The example was about two groups of people who came to take a boat. Before both groups proceeded, they drew lots for their seats in the boat. One group got its seats in the upper deck while the other group got the lower deck seats. Whenever the latter needed water, they would go to the upper deck to get it. This disturbed the upper deck passengers.

Therefore, those in the lower deck suggested making a hole in their part of the ship to get water thereof, thus causing no trouble to the upper deck passengers. In that case, if the group in the upper deck left the lower deck passengers do what they wanted, all the passengers on the ship would perish. Conversely, if the group in the upper deck prevented the group in the lower deck from making that hole, all of them would survive. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Chapter of Partnership)

Military Service

The military service law is one of the controversial points. It may cause a conflict between a European Muslim's commitments as a citizen, on the one hand, and as a Muslim, on the other. European Muslims in general abide by European laws and one of their national duties is the military service. At the same time, they — as Muslims — adhere to all the Islamic laws in obedience to Almighty Allah and his Last Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

In light of the above, what is the Islamic standpoint on a Muslim being a soldier in a European army?

Let us first pose a question: Is it originally allowed for a Muslim to be a soldier in a non-Muslim army? The answer: It depends on whether the Muslim is a citizen in a non-Muslim country. As mentioned before, if a Muslim enjoys citizenship rights in a non-Muslim country, he consequently should assume all the responsibilities and duties related to his citizenship. As there is agreement among most contemporary Muslim scholars on the permissibility for a Muslim to have citizenship in a non-Muslim country, so it follows as a logical conclusion that such a Muslim may be a soldier in the army of the country concerned.

As a soldier in a European army, a Muslim should know that it is a national duty to fight with his national army in defense against aggression. He assumes this duty in compliance with the oath of citizenship he gave. This does not make him a disobedient Muslim, because he defends the innocent, even if they are of a different faith or race. Moreover, he is to defend the country in which he dwells and the people with whom he lives. We can find many instances in support of this argument in the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) in Makkah. Also his treatment of the Jews in Madinah was a case in point.

However, if the army exceeds the role of defense and unjustly attacks other countries, a Muslim is not allowed to participate in such attacks; it does not matter if the attack is launched against Muslims or non-Muslims. Almighty Allah instructs us, saying, (And fight in the way of Allah with those who fight with you, and do not exceed the limits, surely Allah does not love those who exceed the limits) (Al-Baqarah 2:190).

Therefore, we say that the Muslim — as a soldier in a European army — is not allowed to participate in any unjust aggression even if against non-Muslims. If a European army, for example, launches an unjust attack against China or Japan, a Muslim who is a soldier in such army is not to take any part in this aggression. As is evident, the matter is not a religious or sectarian one. The thing is that a Muslim is required to fight in defense of his rights, yet he is not allowed to attack anybody, even if non-Muslim, unjustly.

As a soldier in a European army, a Muslim is not permitted to participate in the unjust wars waged by his army. The impermissibility is even more conclusive if the army concerned wages an attack against a Muslim country. In this context, there are many strict instructions of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) that forbid fighting between Muslims. An example is the hadith in which he reportedly said,

"If two Muslims meet each other with their swords, then both the killer and the killed will be in the Hellfire," Someone said, "O Allah's Messenger, that is the case for the killer, but why should that be the case for the killed?" He answered, "Because he wanted to kill his companion." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Book of Trials)

It is clear that this Prophetic instruction is general in all cases. So, put clearly, a Muslim is not allowed to engage in a fight under the flag of his national army, if this fighting is led against Muslims. It may be difficult for a Muslim, who is a soldier in a European army, to abide by his religious duty in this regard. However, he has to be clear and honest from the very beginning; he should declare this position to the authorities.

A solution may be provided in the European codes of law, as most may relieve the soldier of a fight that may cause him religious embarrassment, otherwise he may resign. In this case, I say that, if there is no solution, the Muslim soldier should resign as he is absolutely not allowed to participate in fighting against his fellow Muslims anywhere.

The basis on which the Islamic faith is built is the Muslim's loyalty to his religion and his commitment to the application of its laws. This does not mean that a Muslim's loyalty to his country is secondary in importance, as a Muslim's loyalty to his country is an integral part of his religious duties.

However, being loyal to one's country does not always mean being loyal to one's government, as in this case the opposition parties of a given country would be accused of disloyalty to their country, which is inconsistent with the principle of political diversity and the principles of democracy. Therefore, if the participation of a soldier in a fight causes him embarrassment, he is allowed not to participate, and this does not affect by any means his loyalty to his country.

In addition, the loyalty of a Muslim who lives in a Muslim country does not require him to obey the ruler if he commands a sin; instead, one is to disobey such command, for the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us not to obey a human command if it violates any command of Allah. (Sahih Muslim, Book of Government) So, a Muslim's disobedience to the ruler when he commands a sin 

Islam aims at making human and moral values govern the conduct of nations. Almighty Allah ordered Prophet Muhammad to introduce to the disbelievers of Makkah the faith he believed in. In a Qur'anic verse, He says, (Say, "Surely, (as for) me, my Lord has guided me to the right path — (to) a most right religion, the faith of Ibrahim the upright one, and he was not of the polytheists) (Al-An`am 6:161). At the same time, Islam enjoins its followers to protect human and moral values wherever they are; it does not matter if they live in a Muslim or a non-Muslim country. Muslims are also obligated under their religion not to obey their rulers (be them Muslims or non-Muslims), if these rulers breach Allah's commands.

Rights of Muslim Citizens Living in Europe

In the last two centuries, most human societies have widely recognized human rights and many countries have competed to advocate these rights and to include them in their constitutions. Accordingly, citizens, not to mention visitors and residents, in these countries fully enjoy their human rights.

Of course, there is no problem for Muslims to consider the Islamic position on the rights they enjoy as citizens in a non-Muslim country. This is because a Muslim can give up the rights that may involve him or her in any act forbidden by Islam and this has no legal consequences for him or her. Anyhow, there is no doubt that Muslims can benefit from the rights that protect their personal interests.

However, a bitter controversy arises when it comes to the question of political participation; a right that may be of great benefit for Muslims as a community, not as individuals. Many are those who reject political participation and provide proofs for their view. So, I am going to discuss here in detail only the question of political participation, a right that is available for Muslims in Europe.

Right to Political Participation

Rejection of political participation is an idea that has been introduced to European Muslims by the Islamists who fled their Arab and Muslim countries to Europe to escape persecution. So, it was the Islamists who came with this theory to Europe.

In addition, some of these Islamists believed that political participation in European countries is more prohibited than in Muslim countries, as they consider that the regimes of Muslim countries, even if unjust, still have loyalty, even if faint, to Islam, whereas Western regimes are completely non-Muslim and are totally ignorant about Islam. They, therefore, believe that a Muslim living in such countries is not allowed to participate in their political systems, unless they convert to Islam.

Those Islamists who reject participation in the European political systems base their view on the grounds that it is a sin to approve of un-Islamic laws or to be part of un-Islamic legislative and political power. This, they hold, may make a Muslim obliged to bargain away some of his or her Islamic principles. We are going to discuss this question in the following two sections.

Islamic Arguments for Political Participation

Muslims should be allowed to commit themselves within European societies. They can engage in the political activities of these countries; they can join political parties, establish new political parties, and take part in public and local elections. Such participation is a religious and national duty.

This participation is a religious duty in that it enables Muslims to call others to the way of Almighty Allah, contribute to reforming European societies, protect the interests of Muslim communities, take part in improving their welfare, elect the fittest person to represent Muslims in the parliaments, and elect the fittest person for the supreme authority. Such participation is allowed for Muslims on condition that they will seek to protect the public interest and establish justice among people.

Therefore, such participation is not a way for a Muslim to make personal profits, commit a sinful act or to do injustice to people. There are few basic rules in the Islamic heritage regarding this. These rules are as follows:

1. The means of fulfilling a duty is a duty. (Al-Ashbah wan-Naza'ir by Ibn Najeem ) 
2. A greater harm is to be removed by a lesser one. This rule is similar to the English proverb that goes "Choose the lesser of two evils." (Al-Ashbah wan-Naza'ir by Ibn Najeem ) 
3. Laws are set up for the interest of people in the present and in the future. (Al-Muwafaqat by Ash-Shatibi ) 
4. The Islamic law is all about the protection of the public interest; it either brings benefit or prevents harm. (Qawa`id Al-Ahkam fi Masalih Al-Anam, by Al-`Izz ibn `Abdus-Salam ) 

The application of these basic rules does not require the availability of an Islamic law in their favor. Al-`Izz ibn `Abdus-Salam opined,

Suppose a non-Muslim power rules over a given country and this country chooses a Muslim to assume the position of a judge. It is to be kept in mind that this person is expected to protect the public interests of Muslims there.

Because a Muslim should promote all that which may protect the public interest and contribute to reforming society, it is more proper then to allow such a person to take that position. As a matter of fact, the Lawgiver is so merciful and flexible that he removes all the obstacles that prevent people from achieving their interests and never imposes a difficulty on them.

Hence, it is not logical for Muslims to endure a difficulty and refuse to deal with the person in charge who can remove it, because the ruler who appointed him is unjust.

In his argument, this great scholar seems to be discussing our contemporary reality; he further said,

If all rulers are equal in their disobedience to Allah, we should choose the lesser evil. In case we choose a greater evil, we may miss the fulfillment of the basic Muslim interests, and this is not allowed in Islam, unless it is unavoidable. In this regard, Almighty Allah says, (Therefore be careful of (your duty to) Allah as much as you can.)(At-Taghabun 64:16)

Moreover, Ibn `Abdus-Salam concluded his speech saying,

It is even permissible for Muslims to fight on the side of their disobedient ruler to protect his rule, if it is feared that another one who is more disobedient to Allah may assume power in the event the ruler gets toppled.

Refutation of Opponents' Objections to Political Participation

First objection. Those who oppose this view say that participation in European political systems seems to indicate tacit approval of European laws. This is incorrect. European laws are of two categories: the first category includes the laws that go in line with the Islamic laws and so there is nothing wrong with a Muslim approving of such compatible European laws.

The second category includes such laws that do not agree with Islamic laws. As a European citizen, a Muslim is not allowed to approve of European laws that are inconsistent with Islamic laws; rather, he or she should take the legal means to change them. This is a right for all European citizens.

In addition, Muslims in Europe have a commitment to abide by European laws that agree with Islamic laws, whether they are part of the political system or not.

Second objection. The opponents also say that the Muslim participation in European political systems contradicts the doctrine of wala' and bara' (allegiance to Islam and rejection of un-Islamic doctrines). This is also incorrect. This doctrine has nothing to do with the political work.

We all know that European systems are secular, excluding religious considerations from civil affairs. Thus, if a Muslim, through his or her participation in a European political system, becomes a member of parliament and this parliament issues an act that opposes Islamic laws, then he or she can object and make efforts to convince other members to vote against the issuance of such an act.

However, if he failed in this regard, he should not be blamed for that, because he tried to remove the evil as much as he could. In this case, the Muslim's participation is better than cutting himself off or finding it enough to keep himself away from the evil instead of trying to change it.

Similarly, a Muslim may become a minister in a European government and, as a consequence, he will have to apply un-Islamic laws. In a situation like this, it will be permissible for the Muslim to accept such position in which he may be forced to apply laws opposite to Islamic teachings, on condition that he uses this position to support the weak and establish justice among people as much as he can.

It is relevant here to quote Ibn Taymiyyah on this issue:

If a Muslim ruler or judge is not able to fully fulfill his duties as a Muslim, or if his position as a ruler or a judge may force him to fall in few evil practices, even though all this may be correct, the Muslim can accept such position only if he is more determined and more able than others to enjoin the good and forbid the evil. In such a case, it may even be obligatory on that Muslim to accept the position.

On assuming a position in an un-Islamic system, Ibn Taymiyyah also said,

There is nothing wrong with a Muslim assuming a position in an unjust legal system with the intention to contribute to reforming society and preventing injustices done within this position as much as he can. It is even preferable for the Muslim to do so with the intention mentioned above, despite the possibility of being forced to do some wrong deeds while trying to prevent others that are greater in evil. (Majmu` Al-Fatawa by Ibn Taymiyah; Chapter of conflict between good deeds and bad ones )

Third objection. A Muslim should aim to establish the Islamic law and not to participate in a political system that applies un-Islamic laws. This argument is also incorrect. Basically, the complete application of Islamic law is the main objective of every Muslim. This is the case of Muslims living in Muslim countries.

However, it is not correct to limit political work to this objective alone. In fact, political work is intended to protect the interests of a Muslim community under any condition and at any place. Islamic laws may already be applied, in which case, the function of political work would be to implement these laws in the most proper way and to establish justice among people. On the other hand, Muslims constituting a minority in any particular place do not have the ability to establish an Islamic rule.

In such situation, the political objective that Muslims are likely to achieve is not, of course, to establish an Islamic rule, rather to have freedom to propagate the Muslim faith and call others to it, in addition to other objectives that may follow as a result of the achievement of the first objective.

Maybe the political objective of Islamists in Muslim countries, after the decline of the Muslim rule, is to apply Islamic laws perfectly. However, it is not necessary for all other Muslims in other places on the globe to have the same political objective. For example, Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) had only one political objective when he was at Makkah: to call people to Allah's way.

Fourth objection. Muslim participation in a political system strengthens that system, while it is of no benefit for Muslims. This is also incorrect. Islam does not allow participation in a political system, be it Islamic or not, unless such participation is beneficial for Muslims, protecting a public interest, or preventing a harm.

Obviously, many of the Muslims' interests can be protected by virtue of political participation, even if the Islamic law is not fully applied. Therefore, we say that political participation is allowed for Muslims on condition that they contribute to enforcing as many Islamic regulations as they can.

Almighty Allah commands us to fear Him as much as we can (At-Taghabun 64:16). By the same token, a Muslim will be excused, if he or she is not able to fully apply the Islamic law, for Almighty Allah says, (Allah does not impose upon any soul a duty but to the extent of its ability) (Al-Baqarah 2:286).

However, there is no excuse for a Muslim if he does not commit himself to that of which he is capable. The story of the boat mentioned above indicates that a Muslim is allowed to cooperate with others and to act in favor of human solidarity. Fudul Confederacy is a political union that was formed between Arab tribes of Makkah before Islam.

The Prophet himself attended the forming of this confederacy and commented on it with very positive words, saying, "I witnessed in the house of `Abdullah ibn Jada`an a confederacy that I liked very much. Even now in Islam, if I were invited to attend such a meeting, I would respond favorably." (Related by Al-Bayhaqi in As-Sunan Al-Kubra) These incidents indicate that a Muslim may commit himself within society and cooperate with all its members, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, so that he or she can contribute to reforming society and protecting Muslim interests.

Fifth objection. Any participation in a European political system is done under the banner of secularism, while a Muslim should always act under the banner of Islam. This is also incorrect. It is evident that Western societies have chosen to base their political systems on the principles of democracy and secularism after their bitter experience of being humiliated and dehumanized under the dictatorship of kings and the clergy.

Thanks to these principles of democracy and secularism, Muslims in European societies enjoy the right to religious freedom, in addition to all other human rights. Therefore, Muslims within European societies have to deal with these principles as a whole, even if they as Muslims face some disadvantages. As a Muslim, if you accept to live in a European country, you will have to abide by the laws and principles on which the systems of this country are based.

It does not matter whether or not these principles are compatible with our Islamic laws. Participation in a European political system is a right that is to be practiced under the umbrella of the principles approved by European countries. It may be right to reject this political participation just in case such rejection would get Muslims living in Europe out from under the umbrella of European systems and bring them under the umbrella of Islam, which is not possible.

Hence, if a Muslim stays in a non-Muslim country and he nonetheless rejects participation in its political system, this means that he will then be agreeing to live in a non-Muslim country and under an un-Islamic system. Moreover, this indicates that he does not care about having the ability to protect the rights and interests of his Muslim community or improve its welfare in such country.

This also means that he surrenders his rights and refuses to contribute, as much as he can, to the reform of the society where he lives, which is an Islamic principle.

In reality, this is not the actual state of Muslims in any European county. Rather, Muslims in Europe assume their rights as individuals under European systems. So, how can they be prohibited in the name of Islam from demanding their rights as a Muslim community? How can they, in the name of Islam, be denied the opportunity to fulfill their Islamic duty of reforming the society as much as they can?

Calling his people to Allah's way, Prophet Shu`aib said to them, (I desire nothing but reform so far as I am able) (Hud 11:88). In view of that, it is evidently mistaken to encourage Muslims in the name of Islam to remain silent about corruption or to find it enough to express their objection against an evil matter, without making attempts to prevent or rectify it. We are told in the Noble Qur'an that (Allah does not love mischief-making) (Al-Baqarah 2:205).

Sixth objection. Participation in a European political system is done under democracy, which is an un-Islamic system. Therefore, a Muslim is not allowed to engage in such systems. This is not correct either. Democracy is a man-made political system that came to overthrow dictatorship. The features of democracy include individual freedom, equality, and subjecting the ruling authority to the rule of law and bringing it to justice, if they do wrong.

These principles are advocated by Islam itself, even though Muslims may have failed to apply them, except in few periods of Islamic history. Democracy is a political system opposite to dictatorship, not to Islam. So, why do we, Muslims, deny it? Should an authority, even if Islamic, be exercised by Muslim dictators, it would be distorted and misused.

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him)forbadethat a Muslim, whom people dislike, should lead them in Prayer. By comparison, that a Muslim ruler, who leads a whole country, is disliked by his people is worse. On the other hand, if Muslims, who fear Allah and abide by His commands, have the opportunity to exercise authority under an un-Islamic system, then why not? In this case, Muslims will be more able to establish justice, protect the public interest, and resist corruption.

Certainly, if the people of a particular country are Muslims, they tend to choose the Islamic system to rule, and so they have to elect from among themselves those regarded as more qualified to apply Allah's law. Thus, Muslims can accept the features of democracy and adapt them to the Islamic principles, the most important of which is abiding by the laws of Allah in matters about which He, glorified be He, has stated His injunctions decisively. Finally, we say that Muslims in the West can take the same attitude that is adopted by Muslims living in Muslim countries.

In conclusion, it can be said that secularism as a system is opposed to Islam if it is taken to mean excluding religious considerations from civil affairs. In contrast, Islam provides a code of law that considers religious and civil affairs as combined and aims at helping man achieve happiness in this life and the next.

However, Western communities have adopted secularism as a solution for religious and sectarian fanaticism and also as a means to overthrow dictatorship that was exercised by priests in the name of religion, as far as political matters were concerned.

Therefore, none can ask Westerners to reject the system that brought them out of darkness into light and saved them from ignorance and backwardness. However, we have another duty to carry out toward the Westerners: to introduce Islam to them as a way of life. If they accept it, they will find solutions for all their past and present problems in this noble religion and that ideal way.

In fact, we are not against secularism in Europe, because it was the solution available for the problems of European societies. Unlike many Muslim countries, European countries adopted secularism to replace the dictatorship of priests, not to replace Islam.

As Muslims in the West, we deal with secularism as a system that provides justice, religious freedom, and equality. Such attitude does not prevent us from propagating Islam as a way of life and a system that aims at the unity of people, the unity of society, and the unity of religion and the state. This is to be done in accordance with the divine regulations and the needs of human nature.