Connect with us


Medina Safe Havens


medinaGuest article by Amer Haider (Feedback from Muslim Matters Senior Associate J. Hashmi follows the article)

When the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, and his early followers were faced with immense persecution in the city of Mecca, Muhammad instructed his followers to escape from this persecution rather than continue to suffer under it. Under the Prophet’s instruction, his followers migrated from Mecca to Medina in AD 622, thus leaving the birthplace of the Prophet and of the religion of Islam. The Prophet was soon to follow, traveling under the cover of darkness and hiding along the way in a cave to protect himself from the Meccan enemies who pursued him. After the migration to Medina, Muhammad ultimately signed a compromising treaty with the Meccans to promote peace and safety for the Muslims. Thus, the concepts of migration in order to escape persecution, re-establishment of communities, and compromise for peace were all central to the Prophet’s life and to the experience of the early Muslim community. Furthermore, the migration of the early Muslims from Mecca to Medina in order to escape persecution provides a strong precedent that modern-day Muslims facing oppression can follow in order to maintain liberty, dignity and progress.

Today, there are millions of Muslims facing persecution as they struggle to survive in war zones and refugee camps such as those in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Somalia, Sudan, and many other areas. This article will make the case that, firstly, Muslims under oppression should migrate to other locations as part of their Islamic faith; secondly, Muslims must be willing to compromise in order to achieve their strategic goals; and thirdly, countries should come together to establish safe havens so refugees of any faith can escape persecution. It should be noted that the third point is especially relevant for Muslim countries since Muslims constitute the majority of persecuted populations worldwide. I refer to this concept of providing refuge for those escaping persecution as “Medina Safe Havens.” This article calls on both world leaders and oppressed populations to support the creation of Medina Safe Havens across the globe so that there may be sanctuaries like the one Medina provided the Muslims fourteen hundred years ago.

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.

Migration as an Act of Islamic Faith

The religion of Islam encourages Muslims to migrate from their homelands in order to escape persecution and oppression. This migration is considered a sacrifice for the sake of God and is a form of peaceful struggle.

Muslims revere Prophet Muhammad’s life and his teachings as an explanation of the Qur’anic text, and they strive to replicate his  footsteps by adhering to the hadith, or traditions, of the Prophet. Thus, it is significant that some of the most notable events in the Prophet’s life involved his migration to escape persecution. After he started openly preaching Islam in Mecca in AD 610, the city’s leaders became increasingly hostile towards the converts to the new religion and resorted to torture and harassment in an effort to stop its spread. To protect early Muslims from this persecution, Muhammad initially ordered their migration to Abyssinia (now Ethiopia), where he sought their protection from its Christian king. Some Muslims migrated to Abyssinia in AD 615, but Muhammad and the converts who remained in Mecca faced escalating torture and violence against them. In AD 622, the Prophet negotiated an agreement with the neighboring city of Yathrib (now Medina) and ordered Muslims to migrate. Ultimately, the Prophet’s own life was threatened in Mecca; in fact, the night he escaped to Yathrib with his friend Abu-Bakr was the night for which his assassination was planned. The Prophet was still being pursued by his enemies after he escaped from Mecca, so he had to hide in a cave for a couple days before taking an alternate route to Yathrib. This migration, known in Arabic as the Hijra, is extremely significant in the history of Islam, and it marks the beginning of the Muslim calendar, AH (for “After Hijra” or “Anno Hegirae” in Latin) [1] which is still in use today.

The significance of migration in Islam has not only been highlighted by the physical activities of the Prophet and his followers in Abyssinia and Medina; the subject of migration has also been addressed multiple times in the Qur’an. For example, in Sura An-Nisa (the Chapter on the Women), the Qur’an says that when angels ask the people who die while committing sin what was wrong with them, they will claim to have been oppressed. The angels will reply by asking if the earth was not large enough for them to have migrated away from the evil and stating that if anyone has the ability to move to another place in order to escape oppression but does not do so, Hell will be his destination (Qur’an 4:97). The following ayas (verses of the Qur’an), 4:98 and 4:99, state that only the feeble who cannot move or migrate will be forgiven for not trying to flee from oppression, and 4:100 says that the people who do migrate will be rewarded by God. Overall, Sura An-Nisa is focused on describing the rights of women and children; thus, the role of migration for the purpose of escaping oppression is presented as key to the fulfillment of these rights.

In Sura Ash-Shuara (the Chapter on the Poets), God commands Moses to lead the Jews at night from Egypt (Qur’an 26:52). This and many other Qur’anic ayas refer to God’s commandments to the Jews to migrate in order to escape persecution. In Sura Al-Ankaboot (the Chapter on the Spider), one is reminded that there is plenty of space on this earth for everyone, as God’s land is vast and abundant (Qur’an 29:56). Subsequent verses of this chapter, while noting the shortness of this life, also state that God provides sustenance and safe transport and, thus, urge man not to fear moving from one location to another.

Many hadith of the Prophet refer indirectly to the concept of migration to save one’s life. Muhammad is quoted as having said, “The blood of a Muslim is worth more than the Kaaba [the most holy site in Islam] and all its surroundings” [2]. The priority is clear. Islamic faith and tradition clearly command Muslims to escape from persecution. God says in the Qur’an that people who migrate for His sake will be promised a place in Paradise (Qur’an 4:100). In fact, in many ways, a migrant is seen as being very similar to a one who gives his life for the sake of God, sacrificing his worldly possessions in exchange for God’s reward.

Strategic Compromise as an Act of Following the Hadith

During the period of hostility between Mecca and Medina, the Prophet and his followers tried to return to Mecca for a brief visit; however, the Quraish stopped the Muslim caravan and forbade their entrance. As the Muslims had hoped the Quraish tribe of Mecca would allow them to peacefully enter their city to perform religious rituals at the Kaaba, Muhammad strategically suggested a treaty to bring peace to the region and allow Muslims back into Mecca once a year for the specific purpose of visiting the Kaaba. The outline of this treaty, known as the Treaty of Hudaybiyya, is translated as follows:

In the name of almighty God, these are the conditions of peace between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhayl ibn Amr, the envoy of Mecca. There will be no fighting for ten years. Anyone who wishes to join Muhammad and to enter into any agreement with him is free to do so. Anyone who wishes to join the Quraish and to enter into any agreement with them is free to do so. A young man, or one whose father is alive, if he goes to Muhammad without permission from his father or guardian, will be returned to his father or guardian. But if anyone goes to the Quraish, he will not be returned. This year Muhammad will go back without entering Mecca. But next year he and his followers can enter Mecca, spend three days, and perform the circuit. During these three days, the Quraish will withdraw to the surrounding hills. When Muhammad and his followers enter into Mecca, they will be unarmed except for sheathed swords, which wayfarers in Arabia always have with them.

The Treaty of Hudaybiyya is significant as it set the precedent for Muslims to make strategic compromises in order to achieve their primary objective of worshipping God, which was represented in this case by visiting the Kaaba. Originally, the treaty referred to Muhammad with the title “Messenger of God,” which was unacceptable to the Quraish. While the companions of the Prophet were not willing to remove this title, Muhammad edited the treaty himself and agreed to compromise and sign without his God-given title [3]. After the signing of the treaty, there was discontent among the Muslims because they did not like its one-sided stipulations, such as the agreement to return those who left the Quraish for the Muslims to their fathers or guardians but not do the same for those who left the Muslims for the Quraish, but the strategic compromise ultimately paid off for the Muslims in the long run by occupying and controlling Mecca in a non-violent fashion.

The Need for a New Medina

Today, migration as a result of persecution or armed conflict has generated over fourteen million refugees,[4] and based on UNHCR figures published in June 2009, the majority of these refugees originate from Muslim majority countries1. According to the Durable Solutions UNHCR report from 2003[5] , the “durable solutions” to refugee populations are voluntary repatriation to the country of origin, local integration into the country of asylum, and resettlement to a third country.

With the majority of refugees being Muslim, it makes sense for stable Muslim countries to serve as the “third country” for these refugees to resettle in. Furthermore, given that Muslims are commanded by their religion both to migrate in order to escape persecution and to believe God will provide sustenance for all of His creation (Qur’an 6:151), and given that hosting refugees is an integral part of Islamic tradition, this article calls upon today’s Muslim countries and populations to create safe havens that will accept refugees from anywhere in the world. The idea is simple—Muslim countries should lend a portion of their uninhabited lands to refugee populations, thus creating Medina Safe Havens communities all around the world.

Family Farming

There are many models to follow for the implementation of safe havens for refugees that do not place major burdens on the host countries. I will outline one proposal that I see as not only practical for the refugees but also beneficial to them and their host countries.

I suggest host countries allocate unused areas of land to refugees and allow anyone of any faith or ethnicity to migrate to those areas. These countries would simply provide each refugee family enough land to establish a self-sustainable farm. Together these farms would encourage a lifestyle similar to that of the early Israeli Kibbutz or the nineteenth century American countryside experience and would not require any infrastructure like electricity, sewers, or roads. Needless to say, refugee families would be free to use any prior savings or resources of their own to purchase tents, beds, prefabricated homes, solar panels, electric  vehicles, farming aids, or any other products that could serve as a means of improving their lifestyles. Homeschooling for children can be encouraged, thus allowing them to stay home to help on the family farm, and health care can be provided nearby, via mobile clinics. Compared to their current living conditions, having a parcel of land, security, healthcare, education, and the opportunity to work hard and earn a living would surely be seen as a luxury to the modern-day camp ridden refugees in Africa, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other areas of the world.

Starting a Medina Safe Havens

Starting a Medina Safe Haven is not as daunting a project as many potential host countries may initially think. I urge countries with large areas of available land to give a good look at the cost of starting Medina Safe Haven communities. Due diligence will show that supporting a simple agriculture-based economy only requires allocation of unused land and access to very small amount of water. Based on information from the meetings of the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a lot of only 700 square meters (7535  square feet) is required for one person to support his own vegetarian diet, an extremely small space compared to the approximately 16,000 square meters (172,222 square feet) required to produce the food in a typical Western diet.[6]

Based on new agricultural techniques such as Dry Area Agriculture[7] and Biointesive® farming,[8] it is estimated that only 3500 square feet of land and between 250 and 1000 liters of water per day are required for one person to survive. Furthermore, only 2 to 4 liters of that water needs to filtered for potable use.[9] Green technologies, like wind turbines, solar panels, rechargeable batteries, and LED lighting, will allow these new communities to quickly increase their standard of living and, at the same time, become practical models for functional, low-impact, sustainable living. I am also confident that each host country will experience an influx of assistance from international charities and volunteer organizations that will help refugees set up their farms and sustainable lifestyles. Additionally, the safety of and easy access to Medina Safe Haven communities will most likely make them the preferred target for charity organizations looking to optimize their humanitarian relief efforts.

A Worthy Dream

In conclusion, it is my dream to see a world in which large countries establish multiple Medina Safe Haven communities for refugees and wealthy nations of all sizes fund the relocation and administration expenses associated with the establishment of these communities. Specifically for Muslims, I dream that area-abundant countries, such as Libya, Algeria, Sudan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Turkey, will make a point to follow the early tradition of Islam and support refugees through the creation of Medina Safe Haven communities. I also dream that oppressed Muslim populations will follow in the footsteps of their beloved Prophet Muhammad and migrate as commanded by God; and I dream that, in due time, these refugees will dedicate themselves to adopting their new home or winning back their homeland through nonviolent treaties and means of influence, like Muhammad won over both Medina and Mecca.


[1]  a b Watt, W. Montgomery. \”Hidjra\”. in P.J. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. Brill Academic Publishers. ISSN 1573-3912.Link:
[2] Sunan IbnMajah; Silsilah El Saheehah: hadith #3420; Saheeh El Targheeb wal Tarheeb: hadith #2441
[3] Narrated Al-Bara bin ‘Azib Sahih al-Bukhari 3:49:62 link:, Sahih Muslim 19:4404
[4] UNHCR Statistical Online Population Database, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Data extracted Nov 23, 2010. Refugees, Asylum-seekers, Returnees, Internally Displaced and Stateless Persons, 16 June 2010. Excel file download
[5] Framework for Durable Solutions for Refugees and Other Persons of Concern, UNHCR Core Group on Durable Solutions, May 2003, p. 5  – Wikipedia link Ref. 4 .PDF Download
[6]  International Development Research Center. Link:
[7] International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas. Link:
[8] Grow Biointensive® website:
[9] Mayo Clinic. Link:

Feedback from J. Hashmi (Muslim Matters Senior Associate):

First, thank you for writing this article; although I have some major disagreements with what you have stated (which I shall discuss shortly), I do appreciate your willingness to express your views on the issue.  It’s commendable how you’re thinking out of the box, challenging what passes for conventional wisdom amongst us Muslims.  Secondly, I appreciate your desire and love for peaceful resolutions, a very nice change from the aggressive and emotional rhetoric we constantly hear from the “religious right” of Islam.

Having said all of that, it seems that you are implying that the Palestinian refugees ought to be relocated to what you call the “Medina 2010” centers.  (Correct me if I am wrong.)  I myself disagree wholeheartedly with those who can envision no peace with Israel under any circumstances whatsoever, i.e. the “drive the Jews out to the sea” option.  (I support a two state solution along the 1967 borders, something which the global community and the Palestinians support–but which the Israelis refuse to accept.)  Nonetheless, it seems that you are going from one extreme to the other: advocating that Palestinian refugees up and leave seems akin to asking them to roll over and die.

Although I strongly believe that our religion enjoins peace, surely you can recognize the right of an indigenous population to fight off the occupier?  You analogize the situation of the Palestinian refugees to that of the early Muslim community in Mecca, and seem to argue that based on this it would be a religious obligation to flee Palestine.  Yet, such analogies are always problematic, because they are never exact.  We often see the other side of the spectrum abusing such analogies themselves, and then arguing that the Muslims of today must do such-and-such.  But the situation then is not the same exact one now!  Although we learn important lessons from the travails of the early Muslim community, we recognize the changed circumstances now and act accordingly.

In fact, the Israelis from the very beginning desired to drive out the Palestinian population, arguing–exactly as you do–that the Arabs and Muslims have plenty of land elsewhere; the idea was that the Arabs and Muslims outside of the region would “absorb” the Palestinians, thereby ridding Israel of its Palestinian problem.  This was–and is–Israel’s “population transfer” policy, a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of the land of Palestine.  It is for this reason that Israeli apologists point to the vast Islamic lands compared to the small sliver of land that Israel occupies, as if to argue: is there really not enough room for the Palestinians in the Islamic world?

Yet, the issue is not about space.  It is about the national identity of the Palestinians and their existence as a people–and their right to the land that their ancestors have tilled for hundreds of years.  It is about the sanctity of international law; it is about freedom and liberty.  It is about what makes us men.  Lastly, and most importantly, it is about upholding a covenant in our religion, which is to defend against oppression in the land.

You mention hijra.  But do not forget that there is also jihad.  The Muslim community of Mecca was commanded to do hijra, but the community of Medina was commanded to engage in jihad.  So it is up to the Muslims today–the Palestinians in specific–to decide whether or not their situation calls for hijra or jihad.  Let me be perfectly clear: I am not calling for terrorism or aggression.  Jihad is one of the most misunderstood concepts in the West, perhaps because even in the Muslim world it has a disputed meaning.  Here, I am simply using the term ‘jihad’ to refer to the right of a native population to fight off those who occupy and oppress them, a right recognized by international law and by God Himself; that is what jihad is. As God says in the Quran:

Permission to fight is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed–and most surely God is well able to assist them–those who have been expelled from their homes without a just cause.  (Quran, 22:39-40)

Of course, this is not a blanket justification for war.  It must be understood that the goal is to ward off oppression and aggression; God declares:

But if the enemy inclines towards peace, you also incline towards peace–and trust in God. (Quran, 8:61)

So I do share your love for peace–I think it is what the Quran itself enjoins repeatedly.  But, as Martin Luther King famously said: “Without justice, there can be no peace.”

It seems to me that your proposition would be admitting to the end of the Palestinian dream of having a national homeland.  After all, is this not the reason that the neighboring Arab countries deny Palestinians the right to citizenship, because it would result in the loss of Palestinian identity?  Such a move may come across as insensitive, but it is similar to that of the American Jews during the Holocaust who refused to “absorb” Jewish refugees–for it was thought that they ought not to go anywhere but Palestine, which they saw as the only permanent solution to the problem.  (Of course, the two situations are not at all comparable in the sense that the American Jews were sending the Jews to a land that was not rightfully Jewish, whereas the Arabs today are ensuring that the Palestinians do not give up land that has been theirs for hundreds of years.)

There may well come a time when the situation in Palestine becomes completely unbearable such that it would be inhumane for the greater Islamic world not to take in Palestinian refugees en masse.  The goal of the Israelis is of course to reduce the natives of Palestine to the situation of the natives of America.  Yet I do not think we have reached that point yet–and most importantly, I do not think that the Palestinian people themselves think they have reached that place yet.

That leads me to my last point: I think we should listen to what the Palestinian people want.  Do they, as a people, want to abandon their national dream?  I do not think they would be as receptive to the Medina 2010 proposal as they would be to Arab and Muslim countries simply providing financial assistance to the refugees in the West Bank and Gaza.  Instead of having the refugees come to us, why shouldn’t we go to the refugees?  Surely that would be a lot more beneficial to the Palestinian dream.

Furthermore, I think such an approach would be far more realistic and practical than what you have proposed.  The Medina 2010 initiative seems overly simplistic, if not outright quixotic.  It is not easy to absorb such a large diaspora population–especially for third world countries.  In fact, it would lead to the destabilization of the neighboring Arab countries, which the Israelis recognized as another benefit of “population transfer.”  Basically, I completely disagree with your statement here:

I will outline one proposal that I see as not only practical for the refugees but also beneficial to them and their host countries.

Your proposal sounds neither practical nor beneficial for the host countries.  And it is of questionable benefit to the Palestinian people.  To conclude: I disagree with your article, but I’m glad you wrote it so that we could at least have this conversation.  Keep in mind that I am the one who put your article up in the first place, which I would not have done if I thought your article was completely useless.  I think that you raised some interesting points, gave another perspective, and now we have something to think and talk about.  And for that, I say: cheers!

Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah

Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.

The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small. Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.



  1. huzaifa

    February 9, 2010 at 9:20 AM

    To Br Aamer Haider.. you have probably by mistake forgotten to place SalAllahu Alaihi wa Salaam after mentioning the Prophet alyhis salaam… please correct..

    Also I feel that one of the main reasons (correct me if i’m wrong) that the Ummah was asked to migrate was due to not being allowed to practice their religion, which in my mind equals oppression. And this is what is referred to, when you mentioned finding people committing sin and saying that we were oppressed. So while I think the safe havens idea is great, I think it would include many more people. And then the question arises, Would those governement s you speak of allow people the freedom to practice their religion freely?

    My two cents

  2. AsimG

    February 9, 2010 at 11:06 AM

    I think a person needs to physically visit the West Bank and the settlements before they say the 1967 borders is a viable solution.

    A friend of mine is currently there and he believes there can never be a two-state solution. The settlements are massive with settlers who are amongst the craziest religious fanatics in the world and who even the Israeli soldiers fear. There is no real political will to empty the West bank and even if the government tried to close the settlements it would require an all out war (the settlers are armed) with massive casualties.
    And let’s not even mention East Jerusalem.

    With that said, I believe this proposed solution is a good one. Palestine is not the only country facing oppression and poverty. There are Muslims across South Asia and Africa who need help and cannot continue to lo live in their homelands. The rich Muslim countries need to do more than just send a few million to areas hit by natural disasters. All those Saudi yachts and palaces could hold thousands of Muslims in need and help them thrive. And it need not be just empty charity as these Muslims have massive potential if given the opportunity.
    Think of the massive memory of Abu Hurairah (ra) and the courage of Bilal (ra).

    • Abu Sauleh

      February 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM

      I have to concur with you on this. All my Palestinian friends who have been there recently have said the same thing. The Israelis are too well entrenched in the occupied lands and show no intention of ever withdrawing meaningfully. And as sacred as Masjid al-Aqsa is, the life of every single innocent Muslim that gets taken away is more sacred. But the problem again is where do they go? No neighboring Muslim country is willing to accommodate them.

  3. Abu Sauleh

    February 9, 2010 at 11:28 AM

    Jazaak Allaah khayr for a thought provoking article. I mostly agree with your analysis and your proposals. If such a project were to be implemented and were to be successful, I am sure it would attract even those who are not refugees but are looking for alternatives to a hectic and mostly materialistic city life. In quite a few ways, your ideas reminded me of Sh. Imran Hosein’s vision of a ‘Muslim Village’. The main problem I see though in your proposal is the pre-requisite of help from governments. Given the track record, I believe it is delusional to expect todays world leaders, Muslim or otherwise, to do something out of pure altruism. They would only tolerate, let alone facilitate, such an effort if it does not diminish their power and would benefit them in some tangible way. Perhaps the private sector in Muslim countries could be tapped to invest in such a project. A combination of a good heart, strong finances and a keen business head can still be found amongst many Muslim populations.

  4. Umm Bilqis

    February 9, 2010 at 12:15 PM

    Quote from the article:
    “Needless to say, refugee families would be free to use any prior savings or resources of their own to purchase tents, beds, prefabricated homes, solar panels, electric vehicles, farming aids, or any other products that could serve as a means of improving their lifestyles. Homeschooling for children can be encouraged, thus allowing them to stay home to help on the family farm, and health care can be provided nearby, via mobile clinics.”
    Naturally not all persecuted people should make it easy for their oppressors and leave their locals, however I do not think that the author meant this.
    A thought provoking article and necessary to contemplate, many of the ideas put forth make much sense. I like the ideas on farming, homeschooling and generating energy from free resources (Solar etc). A small suggestion would be the use of some of smaller villages in Muslim countries throughout Africa which do not require large scale planning for relocation and May welcome the investment into their communities? Second, I prefer the Mondragon method of sufficiency, it reminds me of the Islamic models of profit sharing and business generation. It would be good if Muslim families in villages were taught how to operate family or community gardens rather than large scale operations such as the kibutz system which may generate ill will from envious locals. Rather it would be more prudent to be involved in sharing with the locals in the areas of farming, business and educational resources and this will be well met.

  5. MR

    February 9, 2010 at 1:01 PM

    Seems like Amer Haider forgot about Jihad and the right to defend one’s land. If we were to take these Madina safe havens then people who are oppressing will continue to oppress more and more land until there are no more safe havens..

    • Abd- Allah

      February 9, 2010 at 10:17 PM

      How can one defend his land if he doesn’t have the means or resources to do so? Is just sitting there in your land waiting to be killed considered defending your land?

      • huzaifa

        February 10, 2010 at 9:21 AM

        Take a look at my reply to your below post..

        excerpt..”If the enemy enters a foot into Muslim Land, it is the responsibility of the inhabitants to wage Jihad, if the people are unable (lack resources, manpower, etc) the responsibility rests with those Muslims in surrounding areas until it the necessary means are met…”

  6. AsimG

    February 9, 2010 at 2:12 PM

    ^That is true, but not everyone is strong enough to stay in such conditions.
    Also, some Muslims are living in majority non-Muslim lands and being oppressed.

  7. AsimG

    February 9, 2010 at 6:55 PM

    Here is a link to to my friend’s blog detailing his time in Palestine/Israel

  8. BrownS

    February 9, 2010 at 11:13 PM

    Re. Br. Hashmi’s comments – the Palestinian issue is unique in its own right, having a complicated history and being in a blessed and holy land. What about the other millions of refugees in other parts of the world? What about the “IDPs” in Pakistan? What about Afghanis and Iraqis? What about Kashmiris? What about Pakistanis stuck in Bangladesh since Independence? What about the numerous Muslim minorities stuck in places where they are continually harassed by majority governments (the Rohningya of Myanmar are one such example)?

    Indeed the Earth of Allah is Wide, and when it comes to places that are not sacred to us and in situations where Muslims are unable to secure their rights peacefully or otherwise, this is an option we should consider seriously promoting and working toward actualizing. Br. Abu Sauleh is right – Sh. Imran Hosein has done some preliminary work on this idea.

    And finally about Palestine, we are told in authentic hadith that when ‘Isa (as) returns he (saws) will find the Mahdi and his followers encamped in Jerusalem. So it doesn’t matter how hard the current occupiers try to secure their “country’s” “existence” and how hard they try in decimating young folk in the areas of Khurasan, the promise of Allah will hold true.

    Wallahu ta’ala ‘alam.

    • Abd- Allah

      February 9, 2010 at 11:28 PM

      Keep in mind that Mecca is holier than Jerusalem, and yet the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions still migrated to Medina.

      • huzaifa

        February 10, 2010 at 9:18 AM

        I think people are inadvertently mixing the reason of emigrating to medina…

        – Makkah was not a Muslim Land at the time of Hijra, Al-Aqsa was
        – If the enemy enters a foot into Muslim Land, it is the responsibility of the inhabitants to wage Jihad, if the people are unable (lack resources, manpower, etc) the responsibility rests with those Muslims in surrounding areas until it the necessary means are met.
        – Just because since most of our lives Palestine has been in the hands of the Jews, it makes us forget that it once belonged to the Muslims.
        – Think about it like this, all our lives Makkah has been a Muslim land, if Australians decided that for whatever reason they had ancestral ties to Makkah and that they want to retake their ancestral land.. should makkan citizens and Muslims around the world just allow them to take over…

        • Abd- Allah

          February 10, 2010 at 2:32 PM

          Akhi huzaifa, I agree with you that Muslim lands should be defended from those who occupy it and oppress its people, but you speak as if any Muslim country has the means of defending Palestine. The fact is that Muslim countries are unable (lack resources, manpower, etc) to defend the Muslim lands, because they simply don’t have the means. Even all Muslim countires combined don’t have the necessary means for the task at hand, that is why hijrah is the alternative until Muslims have the means and are capable of defending the land. The way you say it, should Muslims “allow” them to take the land, as if Muslims are happy about it and as if other Muslim countries can do something about it but they are not. Reality is that they aren’t able to do anything about it because they lack the means and resources.

          IF Australia occupies Makkah and the Muslims are not able to defend it because they lack the power and resources to do so, and if the Muslims in Makkah become oppressed and are not able to establish their deen, then yes, hijrah becomes obligatory on them as well, just like the early Muslims made hijrah from Makkah to Medina because of that same reason, oppression and not being able to establish their deen.

          • Faraz Omar

            February 10, 2010 at 10:05 PM

            La hawla wa la quwwata illa billah…. what are u saying???

            Please read some of the ghazwat n seerah , even the story of umar mukhtar to get some guidelines.

            Muslims are not as weak as u say they are.

            And there is no need to bend over backwards to defend Muslim countries and their rulers. When they are wrong, they are plainly wrong.


          • huzaifa

            February 11, 2010 at 7:41 AM

            Brother AbdAllah… I appreciate your perspective…but when you keep saying that we lack the means and the resources… I must diasagree… in the 70’s we had the oil embargo .. that goes to show we have political muscle and we must be heard…if in Afghanistan a bunch of rag tags are defeating the American Army and NATO forces imagine what all of us could do in Palestine, but only if we stand united to please Allah swt…Additionally, we have a billion plus muslims and you tell me we cant do anything… At Badr 313 MEN, I doubt that you would have thought this would be sufficient manpower, resources at that time either…
            Allah swt has promised those who stand up against oppression victory…all we need is MEN and WOMEN not males and females..

            I implore the other readers on this site to take a look at where the train of thought is going for those who discredit or reject Jihad as an act of worship..

  9. Abd- Allah

    February 9, 2010 at 11:26 PM

    JazakumAllah khayr brother Amer for this well written article. I think it is a good idea, but needs to be adjusted in several aspects. For one, you will not find any nations that are willing to host these refugees. Not to mention that oppression also exists in these host nations but in different forms. If you have refugees move to a host country, they won’t be treated as everyone else, and they will also be oppressed there and treated as second class citizens. Another thing that needs to be considered is do these refugees really want to live on farms? Most will probably want to move into the cities and incorporate themselves as part of society. That will create many problems for them and for the host country. Perhaps calling for general migration of those who are oppressed to major Muslim countries and having them become part of society there is better, just like the early Muslims did when they migrated to Medina. They didn’t remain separate from the inhabitants of Medina but they lived with them and became part of their society. Why call for farmlands that are separate from the rest of the host country? Why can’t refugees simply migrate and become citizens of these new host countries?

    Another thing that many people will bring up is that oppressed Muslims should defend themselves and their land instead of leaving it. Those who make that claim should ask themselves why did the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions may Allah be pleased with them, why didn’t they all stay in Mecca and defend their land and fight the oppression? Why did they migrate to Medina? The simple answer is that they were in a weak position and did not have the strength and resources necessary to fight back those who oppressed them, so they migrated in order to be able to establish their deen. The same holds true here and now. Muslims are in a weak position and they don’t have the necessary tools and resources to fight those who are oppressing them, so the smart thing for them to do is what those early Muslims did, to migrate to a land where they can live peacefully and flourish and be able to practice their deen, and when they gain power they are able to go back and reclaim their land, but from a position of power and authority, just like the early Muslims did, and they were so powerful that their oppressors had to submit to them without even resisting or trying to fight back. I ask why not do the same now? What is different between then and now? Why don’t Muslims who are oppressed migrate to other Muslim countries and then when they are powerful enough they can reclaim their lands? It is better than staying oppressed in your own land and not being able to practice Islam, being killed unjustly by those who are oppressing you and not being able to do anything about it.

    The only issue is getting other Muslim countries (who have problems of their own that they need to deal with like poverty, etc..) to agree to open their doors to their fellow Muslims who are oppressed to be able to migrate to those host countries, and help them settle in and become part of that new society just like the early Muslims of Medina did when the Muslims migrated from Mecca, they took them in and helped them settle down and get established.

    Brother J. Hashimi, JazakAllah khayr for your input on this issue. However, as you said that Israel isn’t accepting that two state solution, so why should the Palestinians be hopeful of that solution? What is the point of calling for it if they aren’t accepting it as you stated?

    And why is “advocating that Palestinian refugees up and leave seems akin to asking them to roll over and die.” ?? No one would say that when the Prophet peace be upon him and his companions may Allah be pleased with them all migrated to Medina that this was akin to asking them to roll over and die. Why is this any different? Isn’t there in the seerah of the Prophet peace be upon him a great example for us to follow? What is wrong in saying that it is better if the Palestinians migrated to other Muslim countries where they can live in peace and establish themselves and their deen instead of staying in their lands and get killed and slaughtered by the oppressing Israelis?

    As for “Israel’s “population transfer” policy, a euphemism for the ethnic cleansing of the land of Palestine.” then isn’t it better for our Palestinian brothers and sisters to move to other Muslim countries and live there instead of getting killed by the Israelis? Lets face it, this is what is happening. Slow ethnic cleansing by killing the Palestinians and oppressing them. How long do you think there will remain a Palestinian population in Palestine if things continue the way they are going where Israel is slowly killing them off?

    Sure, defending themselves is what the Palestinians must do, but let us ask ourselves, are they able to really defend themselves with the limited (to none) resources that they have? Obviously they can not, and so it would be naive to ask the Palestinians to defend themselves while they are in that situation, especially since there is lack of support from other countries. And it isn’t only about financial support that can be solved by simply having other countries financially support the Palestinians. Money can’t buy you land. Money can’t buy peace and security either. If you had money that wouldn’t stop the Israelis from killing you. So money isn’t going to solve the problem here. Besides, the Muslims of Mecca were from among the rich, so if money was a solution to such a problem then they would have used it back then. But they didn’t and instead migrated to Medina.

    The fact of the matter is that these situations today are very similar to that situation of the early Muslims who migrated to Medina, and that is why some scholars said that it is obligatory for those who are oppressed and can’t establish their deen (regardless of where they are) to migrate to other Muslim countries where they can live in peace and establish their deen.

    Now I am not calling for ALL the oppressed Muslims to migrate to other Muslim countries, but those Muslims who are not able to establish their deen where they currently are, then other Muslim countries should open their doors and allow those Muslims to move in and establish themselves in a land where they can freely worship Allah. After all, that is what our main purpose in life is, to worship Allah as the Quran states.

    When Ibn Taymiyah was asked about the situation of the people of Mardeen, a city in Al-Sham which was taken over and occupied by the enemy back then, he said that if the (Muslim) residents of that city aren’t able to establish their deen then making hijrah is obligatory upon them, otherwise it is only recommended and not obligatory. [Majmou’ al-Fatawa 28/240] Meaning if they are able to establish their deen in their land which has been occupied by the enemy, then although it is not obligatory for them to do hijrah to other Muslim lands yet it is still recommended that they do so, but if they are not able to establish their deen in their land that has been occupied by the enemy, then making hijrah to other Muslim lands where they are able to establish their deen and practice properly is an obligation upon them.

    Allah knows best.

    • suhail

      February 10, 2010 at 3:38 PM

      What does it mean that muslims who cannot establish there deen? What does establishing the deen mean? Can you explain this point please.

      • Abd- Allah

        February 10, 2010 at 11:37 PM

        Establishing the deen means fulfill the basics of your deen, the basic acts of worship, being able to perform them without being prevented from doing so or oppressed.

        For example, have masaajid built and call adhan and hold the daily prayers without being oppressed and prevented from praying or going to the masjid by the occupying forces.

        Another example would be if the hijab is banned in some countries, then that means Muslims are not able to establish their deen in that land because they are not allowed to practice this basic act which is part of the deen.

        In some parts of Palestine where the Israelis have complete control over the place and the people living there, the Palestinians are not really able to even practice the very basics of their deen.

        So establishing the deen means performing its pillars without being oppressed and prevented from doing so and without being persecuted for it.

        Allah knows best.

        • suhail

          February 11, 2010 at 10:46 AM

          Well that is only a tiny minority brother. In most of Palestine you can go ahead and pray all you want nobody is gonna stop you from that. So this idea is moot than according to your standards of establishing the deen.

          Similarly is most of the muslim lands who are occupied and people are opressed they can still pray and do the basic acts of Islam. So that means only a tiny fraction of the Ummah needs migration.

          So how come we can ask the Palestinians brothers to leave there land because they are able to perform most of the basic necessity of the deen.

          • Abd- Allah

            February 11, 2010 at 1:50 PM

            To say that it is minority or majority of Palestinians who are oppressed and can’t establish their deen is not for us to decide because we really don’t know the reality of their condition and what is a typical day in their life. It is up to the Palestinians themselves to decide whether they should make hijrah or if they are fulfilling the basics of their deen where they are. No one is asking ALL the Palestinians to make hijrah. It is simple akhi. Those Palestinians (whether it is the majority of them or minority) and other Muslims who are in any other part of the world who are being oppressed and can’t practice their deen then they should make hijrah to another Muslim land where they can establish their deen properly.

            So that idea of “Medina Safe Havens” proposed by brother Amer in this article is a good solution for those who are not able to establish their deen where they currently are and want to make hijrah.

          • suhail

            February 11, 2010 at 2:26 PM

            The problem is I do not know any place where people are stopped from doing there obligatory duties may be china in Xinjhiang. Other than that even in france you can go out with a hijab.

            So i am not even sure were are you gonna apply this ruling in this world for now.

  10. Faraz Omar

    February 10, 2010 at 1:36 AM

    I wonder why it was necessary to add that feedback. Destroys the article really. Yes, one can have a different perspective, one can disagree. But if you let a person’s opinion run, then please let it run without any caveats. Is it necessary that every opinion has to made to correspond to an “official” opinion?

    It shouldn’t as long as the opinion itself is not something that goes against Ahlus-sunnah’s or the blog’s fundamentals?

    This doesn’t mean bro Hashmi that your feedback is not valid. You do raise some necessary points and point out to the missing entity — jihad — in the article. Yea, this could be a wider debate. Talking to Palestinians about it. Talking about Muslims as a nation. What does Islam command the Muslim Ummah to do — the rights and the responsibilities. But it needs a platform that is authoritative — that has global Muslim leaders speaking and which is a platform for the Muslim Ummah. period.

    I know some Palestinians and know what they are pissed off about. Yes they are angry that no country in the region welcomes them despite knowing fully well that they are in such a destitute condition. And yes they are also angry that there is no jihad. One is not exclusive of the other.

    There should be both — hijra and jihad. For those who find it unbearable should be allowed to migrate. Muslims are one Ummah. This is the reality. Our fundamentals are derived from the 7th century. Today Muslims don’t have a leader. Insha Allah we will have one. But Muslim leaders of various countries have a responsibility to do what they can in their capacity.

    • Abd- Allah

      February 10, 2010 at 11:52 AM

      Well said akhi.

    • suhail

      February 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM

      Brother if the leaders in the muslim countries did what there responsibility are than we would not have been in this pathetic state. They do not care except what goes in there pocket.

      • Abd- Allah

        February 10, 2010 at 4:30 PM

        There is some truth to what you said, but that is the reality of the matter. What can we do if the leaders of the Muslim countries are not doing anything (whether it is because they don’t care or if they can’t do anything even if they wanted to). The Muslim countries are weak, not united, and have problems of their own to deal with. Sure they have a responsibility towards other Muslim countries that are occupied, but there is nothing that they can do about it right now with their situation being the way it is.

        • Elham

          February 10, 2010 at 7:56 PM

          Also, these ‘leaders’ came from our own societies, so if these are the type of people we are producing then there is something wrong within.

          • Abd- Allah

            February 10, 2010 at 11:28 PM

            Very true!

        • suhail

          February 11, 2010 at 10:51 AM

          What i said is not just somewhat true brother but the reality. Isnt it true that the Saudi princes sit on the wealth of the Ummah and enjoy while the muslims are dying all over the place without food medicine. All the muslim countries have people like that sitting on the throne enjoying the wealth of the Ummah and not doing jack.

          They are weak because they do not fear Allah. They fear that they will lose all those luxury that they are used to now. They will lose there yacht, there palaces. That is the reason that they do not care about the Ummah.

          Allah may have given them a lose rope in this life but Inshallah he will tighten those ropes on the day of judgement.

  11. suhail

    February 10, 2010 at 10:06 AM

    This is not a new novel Idea that Amer Haider is telling the Palestinians. Shaikh Al Albani also had the same opinion because he said that Palestinians were not capable to fight the enemy. So he said that they should migrate. The reaction of the scholars to this idea of Shaikh Al Albani is well known.

    • Abd- Allah

      February 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM

      Shaikh Al Albani said that those who are oppressed and not able to establish their deen anywhere in the world should make hijrah to a Muslim land where they can practice their deen. And when Shaikh Al Albani was asked even those who are in Palestine? He replied yes even those who are in Palestine. why is Palestine any different than the rest of the world? The Prophet peace be upon him migrated from Mecca which was holier than Palestine. Some people though who have bad intentions and hate for Shaikh Al Albani, they took what he said and started spreading a twisted version of this fatwa trying to get at the Shaikh himself, claiming that Shaikh Al Albani is calling on ALL Palestinians to make hijrah, where in fact he was simply asked if a Muslim was oppressed in his land and wasn’t able to practice his deen what does he do, and the Shaikh replied that it is obligatory for him to do hijrah to a Muslim land where he is able to establish his deen, and he was asked even those who are in Palestine, he said yes even those who are in Palestine. So the Shaikh only said that those who can’t establish their deen have to make hijrah, and that is only true about SOME of the Palestinians in SOME areas of Palestine, and not ALL Palestinians. So even if those Palestinians who aren’t able to establish their deen make hijrah to OTHER PARTS OF PALESTINE where they are able to practice their deen, then that hijrah is good enough. So Shaikh Al Albani never said that ALL Palestinians should make hijrah, and the main issue when determining if a person should make hijrah form his land to another Muslim land is whether he is able to establish his deen in his land or not. If not then hijrah becomes obligatory on him regardless of where he is.

      Allah knows best.

      • suhail

        February 10, 2010 at 3:30 PM

        Well the fatwa that is publicized is that he said that All the Palestinians who have been occupied by Israel should leave Palestine as they cannot defend it and thus it is obligatory on them to leave it. This is the widespread view.

        Now if you can present me the correct fatwa i would concur that i am wrong in this sense.

        • Abd- Allah

          February 10, 2010 at 4:23 PM

          As I said akhi that those who hate the shaikh publicized his fatwa after twisting it, and they lied by attributing to him that he says that ALL Palestinians should make hijrah and leave their land, where in fact he says that only those who can’t establish their deen in their land should make hijrah, regardless of where they live on earth. Furthermore, he says that it is better if those Palestinians who are going to make hijrah to move to other cities/lands WITHIN Palestine where they can establish their deen if it is possible for them to do so, but if they can’t find any other land in Palestine to make hijrah to where they can establish their deen, then in that case they should make hijrah to other Muslim countries. He also says that those who are ABLE to make hijrah (if they have the means and if they find a host country that will take them in) but if they are not able to make hijrah then Allah does not burden a soul except that which is in its capability.

          You can find the correct original fatwa by the shaikh’s own voice on youtube and on his website in Arabic. I was only able to find the twisted version of the fatwa in English as some of the deviant sects use that fatwa to promote their hate and criticism of the shaikh and the salafi dawah in general. But if you can understand Arabic, then here are the links:

          Summary of the fatwa

          youtube video in 9 parts where you can listen to what the shaikh himself said about this issue and compare it to the lies that those who hate him spread about him.

          You can also download the whole lecture as one tape from the shaikh’s website, tape # 20.

          • studentofknowledge

            February 11, 2010 at 4:44 AM

            This is a strange fatwa anyway. Doesn’t it mean that all that is required for an oppressive country to occupy a Muslim land is to wage an attack ? And then the Muslims shall flee that land and leave it to infidels ?

            There are many differences between Makka and Palestine issue . Some are under:
            1. Prophet and followers (from Nuh until Muhammad SAWS) were attacked by their own people, whereas Palestinians from outsiders who came mainly from Europe .

            2. There are sovereign Muslim countries elsewhere who can support and should support Palestinians. This was not the case in Makkah.
            Qur’an 8:72
            “…but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance…”

            3. Palestine was previously under Khilafa and what is obligatory upon people when a khilafah state is attacked is Jihad (if they are able) according to the consensus of scholars. Other muslim countries will also be responsible if they fail the attacked muslims in this case.

            4. Many a scholars have said that there is no Hijrah from an Islamic state, and there is only Jihad. This is supported by what the prophet said later in Madinah , ie, “From hereon there is no Hijrah and only Jihad”.”Given that Palestine was under Khilafa, Jihad is the only option left .

      • huzaifa

        February 11, 2010 at 7:52 AM

        Brother AbdAllah…you keep saying the Muslims migrated from Mecca to MEdina because they were being persecuted and that makkah is holier than palestine… The muslims migrated from a non muslim land to a muslim land…

        Now Palestine and the occupying area is Muslim land like it or not and ALL Muslims have a responsibility to protect it the same way the Prophet SAW protected Medina…

        There is also a large responsibility on the Muslims to ensure the security and protection of Muslim Land…

        • Abd- Allah

          February 11, 2010 at 1:34 PM

          Akhi what defines a “Muslim land” ? Is it the land itself? or is it the people who are living in it?

          I do not agree with what you say that Makkah at that time was a “non-muslim land”. It is the most beloved land on earth to Allah and to His Prophet peace be upon him. That should have been enough to stay and defend it, and that is what they would have done if they were able to and in a strong enough situation to do so. Besides akhi, you are forgetting that Muslims also migrated to Abyssinia (Habasha) which wasn’t a Muslim land. So to tie the hijrah that it has to be from a non-muslim land to a muslim land is faulty and has no basis in the sharee’a.

  12. Abdullah Brown

    February 10, 2010 at 10:30 AM

    Assalamu alaykum.

    Enjoyed both the article and the feedback.

    Three facts regarding Palestine speak volumes and are closely tracked by interested parties but little mentioned:

    1. Zionist citizen flight is up. “Israeli” citizens are leaving. Many others have an exit strategy, not dissimilar to that of the South Africans who had sunk their life-savings into luxury boats that they boarded once the end of the Apartheid State was immediately obvious.

    2. Immigration to the Zionist state of Israel has been down for some time. You about cannot pay people to relocate there.

    3. An American Jewish journalist re-visited Israel for the first time in many years and was overwhelmed by the pessimistic mood. He/she (don’t recall which) reported that the most frequently heard refrain during the visit was, “We should have taken Uganda (offered to the Zionists by the British early in the Zionist movement).” So, much of the Zionist population wish the early Zionists had taken Uganda rather than Palestine.

    Take the above points, remember history’s many examples of how quickly seemingly entrenched power collapses, and many will feel inclined to hold on.

    • Amad

      February 11, 2010 at 4:16 AM

      Very interesting Br. Abdullah. Hope the radicalization process of Likud has the opposite effect!

    • BintKhalil

      February 20, 2010 at 12:20 PM

      Assalamu alaikum

      I just googled the Uganda proposal and, wow, I had no idea about this! It’s so interesting how the “Holy Land connection” is a complete farce. Also, interesting is how the founders of the Zionist movement were tight with Britain when it was the superpower of the world and now they are tight with you-know-who. What I just can’t understand is what the superpowers (then and now) get from the relationship. You would think that political relationships must be symbiotic but what does America get from the billions that are siphoned off to Israel?

  13. Ibn Mikdad

    February 10, 2010 at 1:20 PM

    Assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu,

    While I appreciate the concern brother Amer has for Muslim refugees, the solution he proposes is not really a solution at all; if implemented, it would make the refugees feel defeated and humiliated, strip them of any remaining self – respect; on the other hand, since their potential hosts are far from the level of imaan that the Ansaar of Madina had, only Allah knows what kind of trouble they would put them in; unfortunately, there is a huge possibility that for generations to come, they would treat them as beggars, outsiders and rub their noses with the service they had done for them every time a disagreement between the “hosts” and “guests” appears. I also find the repeated references to Rasulullah s.a.w.s. as simply “Muhammad” very troubling.

    Br. J. Hashmi said: “I support a two state solution along the 1967 borders, something which the global community and the Palestinians support–but which the Israelis refuse to accept.” I don’t really know how we can expect and honest approach to this problem with attitudes like this on the other side:


  14. Ibn Mikdad

    February 10, 2010 at 3:32 PM

    There are hijras we could support and contribute to:


  15. Abd- Allah

    February 10, 2010 at 11:27 PM

    Akhi Faraz Omar, Alhamdulillah I know enough about the seerah to know that Muslims right now do not have the 1) Spiritual means, and 2) the Physical means to defend the occupied Muslim lands.

    The spiritual and mental state of Muslims now is no where near that of the companions may Allah be pleased with them, and not even near what a Muslim should be. The fact of the matter is that many Muslims now don’t even have the proper understanding of Tawheed which is the basis of Islam, and many commit shirk in several of its different forms and associate partners with Allah without even knowing that what they are doing is wrong. Not to mention the different aqeedahs that each sect has. How do we expect to have Muslims who have extremely different beliefs (with some even declaring takfeer on each other) to form a united army to face the occupiers? Do you think an army made up from such individuals (a lot of them don’t even pray their 5 obligatory prayers!!) has the mental and spiritual preparation to win over the occupiers? Allah says in the Quran {O you who believe ! if you give victory to (the cause of) Allah, He will give victory to you and make firm your feet} [47.7] Are the Muslims (in general) ready spiritually and are in the required state (of eman, taqwa, correct aqeedah and beliefs..) to fight off the occupiers? Are we as an Ummah giving victory to the cause of Allah so that Allah gives us victory in return? Let us look at the seerah and see what happened during the battle of Uhud when the archers left the mountain instead of holding their position like the Prophet peace be upon him instructed them, let us reflect on what happened, there is a valuable lesson for us to learn from that.

    In addition to being spiritually and mentally ready, you also need the physical means to fight off the occupiers. Allah says in the Quran {And prepare against them what force you can..} [8.60] That is an order from Allah to prepare the physical means and resources needed for such a task, and in this aspect the current state of the Muslim countries isn’t ready. You can say that this is defending them, but that is reality whether they are right or wrong, it doesn’t change the state which they are in! They have no power or resources to defend the land from the occupier. Do your research akhi and you will see that most of them don’t have any military power, and those who do have few weapons which they bought from other countries, usually outdated models which are worth much less than what they paid for. So the Muslim countries and their people are not physically ready and don’t have the needed resources to defend other Muslim lands like Palestine from the occupiers. That is the reality of the matter. Who to blame for being in this state is a different matter, and it doesn’t change the reality that we are in. Let us look at the seerah and learn. The Prophet peace be upon him stayed in Makkah for 13 years, but how many battles did he fight while still in Makkah? Even though the Muslims were oppressed but they didn’t have the means and resources needed to defend themselves. Thus the hijrah to Medina where they built those resources needed in order to eventually take back their land in Makkah. How many ghazawat were launched during the Makkan period when the Muslims were still weak and didn’t have the needed resources or manpower to defend themselves, and how many ghazawat were during the Medani period after the Muslims have established themselves in Medina and became strong and built the necessary resources and means to defend themselves?

    Reality is that our situation as an Ummah today is very similar to the Makkah period (I don’t mean in matters of fiqh as some try to make the haram halal by (ab)using this argument!!), so perhaps there is a lot for us to learn from the seerah of the Prophet peace be upon him and do what him and his companions may Allah be pleased with them did during that time when they were in Makkah.

    Allah knows best.

    • huzaifa

      February 11, 2010 at 8:05 AM

      Brother AbdAllah… I sincerely ask you to consider a different perspective from a fresh point of view with no prior conceived notions….you mentioned Surah Anfal Ayat 60…you mentioned only a bit of the Ayat, Here is the whole thing…
      “And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery) to threaten the enemy of Allâh and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allâh does know. And whatever you shall spend in the Cause of Allâh shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly”. (8:60)

      And if you had read a little further down you would have noticed Ayat 62-66, particularly ayat 65 and 66, Allah swt is detailing that it is He swt who gives victory and not your resources or manpower and not your professional army. :

      “And if they intend to deceive you, then verily, Allâh is All-Sufficient for you. He it is Who has supported you with His Help and with the believers. (62) And He has united their (i.e. believers’) hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allâh has united them. Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise. (63) O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Allâh is Sufficient for you and for the believers who follow you. (64) O Prophet (Muhammad SAW)! Urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast persons amongst you, they will overcome two hundred, and if there be a hundred steadfast persons they will overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are people who do not understand. (65) Now Allâh has lightened your (task), for He knows that there is weakness in you. So if there are of you a hundred steadfast persons, they shall overcome two hundreds, and if there are a thousand of you, they shall overcome two thousand with the Leave of Allâh. And Allâh is with As-Sâbirûn (the patient). (66)”

      • Abd- Allah

        February 11, 2010 at 1:41 PM

        Akhi huzaifa, I know and believe that victory is given by Allah and not by whatever physical resources we have, but still, Allah commanded us to prepare physically for it, and that is what we have to do along with keeping our trust in Allah that victory comes from Him alone.

        However, since victory comes from Allah, let us go back and see what Allah says in the Quran {O you who believe ! if you give victory to (the cause of) Allah, He will give victory to you and make firm your feet} [47.7]

        Have we given victory to the cause of Allah so that we have that high level of eeman in our hearts to rely on Allah and expect to be given victory by Allah? I tell you that we as an Ummah have not given victory to the cause of Allah, and so why do we expect that Allah gives us victory in return? We have to earn victory, and our actions have yet to prove that we are even trying to earn it.

  16. Faraz Omar

    February 11, 2010 at 12:03 AM

    Actually that’s a statement of Shaykh Rabi’… if you can understand Arabic read this.

    The shaykh wrote this last year during the attack on Gaza. Read on what he is calling the rulers for.

    Why are u so judgmental? Are u sure about what ur writing? Are you sure Muslims are soo weak as you say? The tragedy of not doing something is big enough, but it is also being justified… Allahul-Musta’an. As Shaykh Rabi’ questioned the rulers… “Until when should we accept this humiliation?”

    The problem is that some of the english speaking brothers read only selective translations, which confirm with a group’s opinions… anywys i rest my case.

    • Abd- Allah

      February 11, 2010 at 12:20 AM

      BaarakAllah feek akhi Faraz, I read the article by Shaykh Rabi’ but didn’t find that statement.

      Did you read that article akhi? It supports everything which I said!! Please go back and read the article and pay attention to its details akhi, you will see that it mentions a lot of what I have said.

      Akhi, I am not judgmental, this is a fact that the state of the Muslims now is not that of strength and power. And this doesn’t justify the Muslim rulers not doing anything about it, yes they are wrong in that regard, but them being wrong and not doing anything about it doesn’t change the fact that the Muslims are not in a state of power right now.

      I agree with your statement:
      “The problem is that some of the english speaking brothers read only selective translations, which confirm with a group’s opinions”

      But I encourage you to go back and read that article by Shaykh Rabi’, you will see that it supports most of what I have said.

      • Faraz Omar

        February 11, 2010 at 12:34 AM

        Allah yubaarak feek… I guess i gave the wrong one… i’ll find the right one insha Allah later on… gotta go now

  17. Abd- Allah

    February 11, 2010 at 10:38 PM

    Akhi huzaifa, no one is “discrediting or rejecting jihad as an act of worship”. However, you need to be prepared for it just like you prepare for all other acts of worship. Calling for jihad in the state that we are currently in is like calling people to pray without having wudu’ (I know this is not a perfect analogy, but I hope you get the point). If Muslims now are not ready to fight those who occupy their land, then how do you expect them to? Allah does not burden anyone beyond their capabilities. Look what happened when the Saudi king put a hold on oil for the US, what did they do to him? Just because the Saudis own the oil doesn’t mean they are in control of it (when you look at the reality of things on the ground). You really think akhi that an Ummah whose individuals are indulged in sins, innovations, have the wrong aqeedah and many commit shirk, and a lot aren’t even practicing the basics of Islam and don’t even pray, you think that these individuals can be united and face those who occupy their land? When you compare the companions may Allah be pleased with them to the average Muslim of today, you will see why “313 Men” are not enough to free the land from the occupiers. That is why for 13 years in Makkah, the Prophet peace be upon him was training the companions spiritually and mentally to have that high level of eeman and unity for them to be able to have just 313 Men defeat their enemy.

  18. Abd- Allah

    February 11, 2010 at 10:40 PM

    Brother ‘studentofknowledge’, no this fatwa does not mean that all an oppressive country has to do in order to occupy the land is to wage an attack and then Muslims flee the land. No one is saying that Muslims should “flee the land”, and if you had read or heard to the original fatwa in Arabic and the strong proof that supports it, then you wouldn’t have said it was strange, but perhaps you have only read a twisted version of that fatwa and that is why you think it is strange. No one is saying that Muslims shouldn’t defend their land if it becomes occupied, but in case that their land is taken over and they try to defend it but are not able to and the occupiers settle in and start oppressing the Muslims and preventing from establishing their deen and the Muslims are not able to do anything about it then they have to make hijrah, but not like the way you have pictured it that they all are “fleeing their land” as soon as an attack is waged on them. I highly suggest that you listen to that original fatwa in Arabic if you can understand Arabic before you label it as strange.

    As for the hadith that there is no Hijrah and only Jihad, then you have to understand it in context, and you have omitted a very important word from that hadith which explains the context of that statement. The Prophet peace be upon him said there is no hijrah AFTER FAT’H (of Makkah) and only jihad. If you take that hadith alone like you did, then it implies that there is no hijrah AT ALL after the Prophet peace be upon him made that statement. But the fact is that the Prophet peace be upon him made that statement AFTER the opening of Makkah, so he said there is no more hijrah FROM MAKKAH TO MEDINA since it became a Muslim land and both cities were Muslim lands, so the REASON for making hijrah from Makkah to Medina is no longer there, that is why there is no more hijrah in that context and only jihad. But if you look at the NUMEROUS and many other ahadith and statements of the Prophet peace be upon him that talk about hijrah and encourage hijrah for the sake of Allah (not to mention that the hijrah is mentioned in the Quran itself!), you will understand that statement in context and see that there will always be hijrah from non-muslim lands to muslim lands, and from lands where muslims are oppressed to where they can establish their deen. This is the explanation that I know of which scholars explain that hadith of the Prophet peace be upon him that there is no hijrah after fat’h but jihad, that there is no more hijrah to Medina, and none of them say that there is no more hijrah AT ALL. You said that “Many a scholars” have said that there is no hijrah and they used that hadith in that context that there is no hijrah at all. Can you please name some of those scholars and quote what they have to say exactly about this, because I don’t know of any scholar that generalizes that statement of the Prophet peace be upon him to mean that there is no hijrah at all, and they all explain it within the context of fat’h Makkah and that there is no more hijrah to Medina specifically.

  19. Abu Ibrahim

    February 12, 2010 at 8:38 PM

    The Palestinians are practically facing extinction! May Allah help them. If I were there, and I had the means, I’d look for an escape route and attempt to live to fight another day.

  20. Abd- Allah

    February 13, 2010 at 6:53 PM

    Another thing that should also be taken into consideration is the fact that some of the Muslims who are living in Palestine are also being oppressed by other Muslims in Palestine as well. When I watched the video of some Muslims(!) attacking one of the masajid and firing bullets at the Muslims inside it, I was shocked! Do we really expect the Muslims to fight off the occupiers if they aren’t even united and are fighting and even killing each other?

    May Allah fix the state of the Muslim Ummah.

  21. Pingback: Peace: bought and paid for | PARTISANS

  22. Ahmed Shibau

    August 26, 2012 at 3:58 AM

    Is it permissible to migrate to Makkah or Medina….if yes please advise the procedure I will have to follow in order to migrate…I will like migrate for the sake of Allah to come close to Allah & Prophet (Peace be upon him)

    • Rouillie Wilkerson

      May 16, 2013 at 3:56 AM

      Me as well, I also contibuted a response to the article in general, below.

  23. Rouillie Wilkerson

    May 16, 2013 at 3:55 AM

    With respects to the Palestinian situation, I’m at a loss for understanding here. To the best of my knowledge, Israel, the Jewish homeland was given to them by Anwar Sadat, murdered in the early 1980’s and that Jewish roots are part of its ancient past. Besides, they’ve no other place to call home but there. Sure, every Jew in the world can’t fit into tiny Israel, but it is a place of their own.

    Palestinians have lived there for a very long time, and don’t like being mistreated as 2nd class citizens in their own land. Because of the great animosity between the two groups, mistreatment and injustice continues on all levels of Palestinian living, which seems unfair to me.

    Then part of me is, why don’t you leave the Jews alone? As Muslims (many are), you have many options around you and don’t have to harass the Jews. The other part of me is not feeling good about knowing that many of the residents in Israel, are not Jews by practice or observance, but by some distant familial claim or forced diaspora in their family line.

    To a Jew, Israel means many things. To include just being Jewish, because you don’t have to accommodate any other culture to be as you are. This is something that other countries take for granted, i think. Jews worked hard to create a hospitable environment out of the harsh one they were given to live. They’ve blood, sweat and tears invested in a land given to the by a leader that had authority to to do.

    But knowing now, that any perceived threat by the Jewish community (real or imagined) can have dire consequences in manifest by those Jews perceive as a threat. From personal experience, and as a formerly observant Jew, this manifest can be quite daunting!

    So stay and fight oh Palestine? Or migrate or just adapt? I’ve not a clue. So I think in terms of helping people that aren’t contributing to the conflict, like children. People living there that aren’t politically motivated. Just like anywhere, there are plenty of people that read the daily papers, and watch the daily programming and news and shake their heads in disgust at policies implemented by their country’s rulers that they don’t agree with. So what can be done?

  24. Amer

    September 22, 2013 at 11:14 PM

    Thanks for all the comments above. I recently had a conversation about this topic that yielded a new practical point worthy of exploring. An alternative form of creating Medina Safe havens can be achieved by offering entrepreneurial-based, open and permanent immigration. Right now most rich Muslim countries do not allow immigration that enriches the host country. By allowing USA style immigration it is possible that many rich Muslim countries can vastly improve their internal economics and offer a safe haven for many hardworking, oppressed Muslims throughout the region.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *