The caliphate is not an isolationist state. It will deal with other countries based upon a strict criteria set by the sharia which allows friendly relations, trade and multilateral treaties with other nations based upon cooperation and justice.
This can be seen throughout Islamic history where the high values of the Islamic state gained international respect, and whose armies had a reputation for the rule of law at the height of war. The currency of the caliphate spread globally just a few decades after it was first minted by the Umayyad caliph Abdul-Malik ibn Marwan (r.692-705CE). A copy of a gold dinar minted by the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mansur (r. 745-775CE) even found its way to England during the reign of King Offa of Mercia (r. 757–796CE).[1]
The sharia however, prohibits relations with those countries who are actively at war with Muslims like Israel, and limits relations with countries who have a history of occupation and interference in the Muslim world like America, Britain and France.
No Occupation and foreign influence
If the state is under occupation of a foreign power, then there can be no internal sovereignty until the occupiers are removed. This was the case with Iraq and Afghanistan prior to the departure of US-led forces. It was also the case for much of the Muslim world during the 18th and 19th centuries where the main colonial powers – Britain and France – carved up Africa and the Middle East between them. Even after ‘independence’ they left in place institutions and ruling families that would remain loyal to them, long after their troops had left.
If the state is not overtly occupied by foreign powers, but is subjected to the policies and loans of international organisations such as the UN, IMF and World Bank, then internal sovereignty is compromised. Any emerging Islamic state must work to rid itself of the stranglehold of such organisations, which act on behalf of the western powers, primarily America.
Israel openly and brazenly violates international law, UN resolutions and all basic standards of humanity, committing an open genocide, yet is not subject to any sanctions or even condemnation by the main western powers. As US Secretary of State Blinken said, “Look, when it comes to Israel, we don’t talk about red lines.”[2] Compare this to when Iraq crossed the British imposed border[3] and in to Kuwait in 1990. The whole world descended upon Iraq and bombed it back to the stone age, with the full approval and sanction of the UN under Resolution 687.
Independent foreign policy
Most Muslim countries today are ‘agents’ in one form or another of America and other major powers. Agent here means they align their foreign policy with another more powerful state, in order to receive some crumbs in return. Türkiye is a good example of this. Erdogan makes very eloquent and powerful speeches calling for Muslim unity and Muslim action against Israel over its genocide in Gaza, yet refuses to stop supplying oil to Israel via the Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline.
Allah ta’ala forbids these non-Muslim powers from having any sovereignty over the state and its policies. He ta’ala says,
وَلَن يَجْعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لِلْكَـٰفِرِينَ عَلَى ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ سَبِيلًا
“Allah will never grant the disbelievers a way (sabeel) over the believers.”[4]
Way (sabeel سَبِيلً) is mutlaq (unrestricted), which means any way over the believers is prohibited. This includes authority and sovereignty which is the strongest way disbelieving nations can exert their influence over the ummah.[5]
This independence policy can also be understood from the Prophet’s ﷺ meeting with Banu Shayban bin Tha’laba in the 10th year of prophethood, when he was ordered to seek support (nusra نُصْرَة) from the Arab tribes external to Makkah in order to establish a state for Islam. During the meeting Banu Shayban mentioned the treaty they had with the Persian Sassanid Empire, which prevented them from supporting anyone who posed a threat to them.
Al-Muthanna who was the sheikh and military leader of Banu Shayban said to the Prophet ﷺ, “We would be reneging on a pact that Kisra (Persian Emperor) has placed upon us to the effect that we would not cause an incident and not give sanctuary to a troublemaker. This policy you suggest for us is such a one that kings would dislike.
As for those areas bordering Arab lands, the blame of those so acting would be forgiven and excuses for them be accepted, but for those areas next to Persia, those so acting would not be forgiven, and no such excuses would be accepted. If you want us to help and protect you from whatever relates to Arab territories alone, we should do so.”
The Messenger of Allah ﷺ replied, “Your reply is in no way bad, for you have spoken eloquently and truthfully. (But) Allah’s religion can only he engaged in by those who encompass it from all sides.”[6]
Banu Shayban later accepted Islam, and al-Muthanna bin Haritha was appointed by Abu Bakr as the Amir ul-Jihad for the Iraq campaign against the Persians, their former allies.[7]
Military alliances are prohibited
A military alliance is a formal agreement between nations that specifies mutual obligations regarding national security. In the event a nation is attacked, members of the alliance are often obligated to come to their defense regardless if attacked directly. Military alliances can be classified into defense pacts, non-aggression pacts, and ententes. Alliances may be covert (as was common from 1870 to 1916) or public.[8]
These types of alliances are prohibited for the state, because the caliphate must remain militarily independent, and not reliant on technology and weapons from other countries. The pagers which exploded in Lebanon are a good example of the dangers of sourcing western made technology, even for civilian purposes, because they can be weaponised by the enemies of Islam to wreak havoc on the state. The evidence for the prohibition of such alliances is from the sunnah where the Prophet ﷺ said,
لا تستضيئوا بنار المشركين
“Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists.”[9]
The word fire (naar نار) mentioned in the hadith could be a metaphor for “Al-Harb” (war) just as it could be a metaphor for a military alliance. Allah ta’ala says,
كُلَّمَآ أَوْقَدُوا۟ نَارًۭا لِّلْحَرْبِ أَطْفَأَهَا ٱللَّهُ
“Whenever they kindle the fire of war, Allah puts it out.”[10]
This is in relation to the use of the word ‘fire’ as a metaphor for war.
As for ‘fire’ being a metaphor for ‘hilf’ (alliance), then the following was stated by Al-Tha’alibi (d. 1038CE): “Naar ul-Hilf (The fire of the alliance): This is what the Arabs used to alight or kindle in respect to the alliances and so they would not convene their alliance except by it (i.e. the fire) and they would mention by it, its terms and supplicate to Allah against the one who breaks the covenant in that they be deprived of its benefits. They also approach it to the point that it is nearly burning them and exaggerate the affair in respect to it.”[11]
Muhammad Haykal says, “If we were to understand the Shar’i text “Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists,”[12] according to the meaning of ‘Fire of war’, the meaning would then be: ‘Do not request from the army of the disbelievers to protect you from your enemies and adversaries, in defence of you.’
If we were to understand this text according to the meaning of the military alliance, its meaning would be: ‘Do not enter a military alliance with the disbelievers i.e. seek to be protected by it from the enemies and the adversaries.’[13]
Muhammad Haykal summarises the prohibition of military alliances based on this hadith.
“Do not seek light from the fire of the polytheists,”[14] indicates the forbiddance of the Muslims from seeking nusrah (support) against their opponents, adversaries and their enemies from the armies of the disbelievers, or to enter into a military alliance with the disbelievers, for the sake or purpose of seeking support and assistance against their adversaries or enemies through that alliance. This is when the Muslims are the weak side and the disbelievers are the strong or powerful side who they turn to for protection.
As for when the Muslims are the strong ones or in the powerful situation and others request their support, or from them to enter under their wing within a military alliance to be protected by the Muslims, then the hadeeth, which we are dealing with, does not address this mas’alah (issue), although the Shar’i Daleel has come for the lawfulness of this issue.”[15]
Notes
[1] British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/gold-dinar-of-king-offa
[2] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/blinken-says-no-red-lines-for-israel-but-warns-against-rafah-attack/3217678
[3] Uqair Protocol of 1922, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqair_Protocol_of_1922#:~:text=The%20Uqair%20Protocol%20or%20Uqair,under%20Ibn%20Saud%20attacking%20Kuwait.
[4] Holy Qur’an, Surah An-Nisaa’, ayah 141
[5] There are different interpretations of this ayah but the strongest is what Al-Razi mentions,
هو أنَّهُ عامٌّ في الكُلِّ إلّا ما خَصَّهُ الدَّلِيلُ “It is general in all except what is specified by evidence.” https://tafsir.app/alrazi/4/141
[6] Ibn Kathir, ‘Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya,’ Vol.2, Garnet Publishing, p.111
[7] Dr Ali Muhammad As-Sallaabee, ‘The Biography of Abu Bakr As-Siddeeq’, Dar us-Salam Publishers, p.557
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_alliance
[9] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.
[10] Holy Qur’an Al-Ma’ida, ayah 64
[11] Al-Tha’alibi, “Thimaar ul-Quloob Fil Mudaaf Wa l-Mansoob”, p.577
[12] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.
[13] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, ‘Al-Jihad wa’l Qital fi as-Siyasa ash-Shar’iyya,’ chapter ‘Military Alliances’
[14] Sunan an-Nasa’i 5209, https://sunnah.com/nasai:5209 Note. There is a difference of opinion on the authenticity of this hadith.
[15] Muhammad Khayr Haykal, Op.cit.
Islamic Civilization 