from the UK A well-known Deobandi Mufti has led most people, including many 'Ulama to believe that adhering to the "law of the land" is a Shar'i duty.

Answer

Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: "There is no obedience for makhlooq in sinning against Allah." That is, obedience to any one is haraam if such obedience entails sinning against Allah Ta'ala. Acting in violation of the Shariah is thus haraam.

Either the 'well-known Deobandi Mufti' has not understood the issue correctly or he may be a well-known bootlicker of the Yahood and Nasaara, hence he disgorged bunkum.

The 'treaty' argument is baseless. Muslims born in a land under kuffaar domination have not contracted any 'treaty' with the kaafir government. The government is supposed to serve all the citizens. These dishonest, satanic kuffaar governments pipe the theme of 'religious freedom', hence the government is in violation of the religious and constitutional rights of the Muslim citizens.

Having been born and bred in a kaafir country does not imply any 'treaty' enacted between Muslims and the government. The government is plainly the servant although it acts as the boss, and that too, a brutal, oppressive, unjust boss. The imposition of anti-Islamic laws is thus oppression and injustice.

If foreign Muslims desire to settle in the kuffaar country, then the treaty argument will have validity. Now, if the foreigner pledges allegiance to the kuffaar government in lieu of citizenship rights, then this will be haraam. In this scenario he will voluntarily accept to submit to all the kufr laws. Furthermore, the Shariah rules that there ghadr (deception) even in Darul Harb is not permissible.

Agreeing to abide by kufr laws for gaining rights in Darul Harb is haraam. The foreigner may therefore not become a citizen of Darul Harb/ Kufr. If he does, he will be confronted by two major acts of haraam. (1) Voluntary submission to haraam and kufr by way of obeying the authorities. (2) Deception – pretending to obey, but violating the terms of the treaty.

Since both scenarios are haraam, it will not be permissible for foreign Muslims to settle in Darul Harb/Kufr.

The stupidity of 'maslahah' does not apply to Muslim citizens born in the kaafir country. Their presence in the land is not by way of allegiance to kufr. Thus, they are under no Shar'i obligation to obey such laws which are in conflict with the Shariah. However, if they are constrained to submit because of governmental compulsion, they will not be sinful. This is the state of Muslim citizens. They are forced by the satanic 'law of the land' to submit to many haraam acts.

If they are able to circumvent any laws which conflict with the Shariah, it will be perfectly permissible regardless of what the 'well-known Deobandi Mufti' says.

The lopsided logic of the Mufti implies permissibility to abandon Islam and become kuffaar. If it is Islamically compulsory for Muslim citizens to obey the kaafir government, it follows that abortion, same sex 'marriages', homosexuality, gender equality, mutilating dead bodies (post-mortem), intermingling of sexes, and a host of other haraam laws will become 'halaal' and necessary for Muslims to abide by.

If the kaafir government bans Salaat, what will the fatwa of the 'well-known' mufti be? If Muslims disobey such a law and perform Salaat clandestinely, will they be sinful? Yes, they will be sinful in terms of the satanic logic of the mufti who has failed to apply his brains constructively within the ambit of the Shariah.

Will a Muslim be sinful for saving his children by some hook and crook from learning and respecting sex perversion such as homosexuality, lesbianism, etc. In a nut shell the well-known mufti is far off the mark. His intellectual dissonance seems to be the effect of bootlicking.

If a kaafir government legislates idol-worship compulsory, will it be Waajib to voluntarily worship idols if the Muslim is able to save himself from such a calamity? Yes, it will be 'waajib' according to the deviate mufti.