Chapter 25

from the Hellfire, like the hypocrisy of Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul and his followers in every time and place. They are those who conceal the denial of the Messenger (peace be upon him), or the rejection of some of what he brought, or hatred towards him, or the lack of belief in the obligation to follow him in everything revealed to him, or the belief that they are permitted to deviate from some of what Allah revealed to His Messenger, or feeling joy at the defeat of the Muslims, pleasure at the decline of the religion of Islam, and resentment at the victory of Islam and the Muslims. This type existed in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and continues to increase day by day until our present era. If hypocrisy existed when this call (Da'wah) was at the height of its power, then what is your assumption about our present time, in which the effects of the weakness of faith in souls have appeared, and they have distanced themselves from the path of truth and righteousness (1). ¶

The Second Category: Minor Hypocrisy (Nifaq Asghar): This is hypocrisy limited to certain actions, such as lying when speaking, breaking promises, and betraying trusts. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: "The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted, he betrays (the trust)" (Agreed upon). In another narration: "Even if he fasts, prays, and claims that he is a Muslim" (2). ¶

We do not wish to enter into the details of the attributes and descriptions of the hypocrites because that is known to most people, and because it takes us outside the scope of Walayah (allegiance) and enmity. However, we are attempting to define the nature of the relationship between believers and hypocrites in terms of allegiance and enmity based on the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Messenger (peace be upon him), and the practice of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). If we were to examine this, we would see that the hypocrites are included within the general body of Muslims, indistinguishable from them except through certain words and deeds in which some believers might also participate due to error or Ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). However, the matter differs for each of them according to the difference in intention and purpose, and since intentions and purposes are among the things... ¶

The hidden matters, which no one knows except Allah, or those whom He has informed from among His messengers—for us, the matter of identifying a hypocrite (munafiq) versus others is one of conjecture (zanni) that does not reach the level of certainty (yaqin), because revelation ceased after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him). We fear for anyone who clings to a trait of the hypocrites that they might be one of them, but we do not definitively label anyone as such because no one knows the secrets of the hearts except Allah Almighty. As for the manifest signs of hypocrisy, or some of them—such as turning one's back on the believers in their war against the disbelievers and abandoning them when the enemy gathers, or like the statement of some hypocrites, 'If we knew that your fighting was for a just cause, we would have followed you,' or the leaning of some hypocrites toward whoever is stronger, whether Muslims or disbelievers, or praising the polytheists at times and preferring their morals and deeds which contradict Islam, and showing them loyalty instead of the believers—then it is permissible to apply the label of hypocrisy to those Muslims who possess such traits, provided they are not driven by personal desire (hawa), Jahili (pre-Islamic) tribalism, worldly animosity, disputes over material interests, or hatred simply because they disagree on matters where people still differ. Therefore, a person must be extremely cautious about labeling someone who claims Islam as a disbeliever or a hypocrite, except after clear evidence. It has been narrated from the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'Whoever calls a man a disbeliever or says, "O enemy of Allah," when he is not, it will return upon him' (1). Since hypocrisy is a form of disbelief—indeed, it may be the most severe type of disbelief—it is not permissible for a Muslim to be reckless in applying this label to people whose reality is known only to Allah, especially when the evidence relied upon for this description is merely speculative. However, if established evidence points to the trait of hypocrisy in a person, it is permissible to describe him as a hypocrite, just as 'Awf ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) did regarding a hypocrite. ¶

The one who spoke regarding the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and his noble Companions: He said to him, 'You lie, but you are a hypocrite.' Likewise, in the story of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) with Hatib bin Abi Balta'ah (may Allah be pleased with him) when he said, 'O Messenger of Allah, let me strike the neck of this hypocrite,' and in one narration, 'Let me strike his neck for he is a hypocrite.' Hudhayfah (may Allah be pleased with him) said, 'A man would speak a word during the time of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) and become a hypocrite because of it'(1). It should be understood that there is no necessary link between the outward attribution of hypocrisy and being a hypocrite in the inward reality. If one performs the signs of hypocrisy, it is permissible to call him a hypocrite for those who wish to do so, even if he is not a hypocrite in reality, because no one knows the hearts except Allah, and because some traits of the hypocrites may be performed by a person erroneously, as happened with Hatib bin Abi Balta'ah (may Allah be pleased with him). Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said what he said, and the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) did not rebuke him for it; rather, he rebuked him regarding the matter of killing, not for his description of hypocrisy, even though he (may Allah be pleased with him) was not a hypocrite(2). The hypocrites took many stances during the era of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) in which their hypocrisy and hidden malice were revealed, such as what occurred with Abdullah bin Ubayy bin Salul in the Battle of Banu al-Mustaliq when a servant of the Muhajirun and the Ansar quarreled. Likewise, the infiltration of the hypocrites in the Battle of the Confederates (al-Ahzab) under the pretext that 'our houses are exposed,' while they were not exposed; they only wanted to flee(3). In these situations and others, neither the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) nor his noble Companions took a hostile stance against these hypocrites. Rather, we find that the trait of tolerance and forgiveness towards these hypocrites was the prominent feature in dealing with them. When Umar bin al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) sought permission from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) to kill Abdullah bin Ubayy, the head of hypocrisy, the Prophet (ﷺ) refused and said to him, 'How would it be, O Umar, if people say that Muhammad kills his companions?' Umar said... 'If you dislike that a Muhajir kills him, then order an Ansari to kill him.' Then... ¶

The Prophet (peace be upon him) did not agree with this suggestion; rather, he rejected it as well, saying to Umar, 'Many noses in Yathrib would tremble at that (i.e., cause turmoil).' By this, the Prophet (peace be upon him) meant that killing Abdullah ibn Ubayy in such a manner could cause civil war among the Muslims, for he expected the anger of many men from the Khazraj tribe over the killing of their leader, especially since many of them were unaware of the reality of his hypocrisy. ¶

It is not permissible to address those in whom the signs of hypocrisy appear with titles of reverence and grandeur. It is stated in a hadith: 'Do not call a hypocrite your master (sayyid), for if he is indeed your master, you have angered your Lord, the Almighty and Majestic.' Refraining from the use of such terms is evidence of the permissibility of detesting them due to the characteristics of hypocrisy they display. However, this hatred does not reach the level of public denunciation unless the attribute is proven to be inherent in the described person, as happened with 'Awf ibn Malik regarding the hypocrite who disparaged the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his companions. A hypocrite cannot be punished for an act unless he or a group of hypocrites perform an action intended to destabilize or corrupt the Islamic mission, such as the hypocrites building the 'Masjid al-Dirar' (Mosque of Harm). Since this act was not intended for the sake of Allah and was proven as such through revelation, the Messenger (peace be upon him) destroyed and removed it. Allah the Almighty says: 'And [there are] those who took for themselves a mosque for causing harm and disbelief and division among the believers and as a station for whoever had warred against Allah and His Messenger before. And they will surely swear, "We intended only the best." And Allah testifies that indeed they are liars.' Thus, if hypocrites commit an act opposed to Islam and its people, and evidence of this is established, it becomes obligatory to punish (ta'zir) them in a manner that preserves the honor and dignity of Islam and the Muslims. This is similar to what occurred with the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) during the Battle of Tabuk, when he received news that a group of hypocrites were gathering in the house of Suwaylim the Jew, discouraging people from the cause. ¶

It is narrated from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) that he sent a group of his companions to them, including Talha ibn Ubayd Allah, and ordered them to burn that house upon them due to their hostile stance against Islam and the Messenger of Islam (1). ¶

Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) intended to execute Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a (may Allah be pleased with him), justifying it by labeling him a hypocrite. His stance served as evidence that if hypocrisy is proven by deceiving the believers and spying on them, it is legally permissible (shar'an) to execute the perpetrator. However, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) prevented Umar from executing Hatib by citing reasons that negated the quality of hypocrisy from him (2). ¶

These rulings apply when an Islamic State exists that deals with the disbelievers, apostates, and hypocrites with an iron fist. But if hypocrites rule and prevail, who will hold them accountable besides Allah Almighty? This is, in fact, what is currently happening; for it is stated in the Sahihayn that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: "The signs of a hypocrite are three: when he speaks, he lies; when he promises, he breaks it; and when he is entrusted, he betrays." (Agreed upon). In another narration: "Even if he fasts, prays, and claims to be a Muslim" (3). These three traits of hypocrites are the bedrock and starting point for the policies of most rulers in Muslim lands today. For them, lying through various media outlets is 'politics'; betrayal through the killing of innocent lives, warring against the straight Shariah, and stealing precious wealth is 'wisdom'; and making promises to reform society through grand speeches and exhaustive statements is 'shrewdness'. The Hadith describes the one who possesses these traits, or some of them, as a hypocrite, even if he fasts, prays, and claims to be a Muslim (4). ¶

So, my dear brother, what is your opinion of one who possesses all the aforementioned traits of the hypocrites, in addition to abandoning fasting and prayer, yet despite this, claims to be a Muslim? ¶

(1) See: Al-Bidayah wan-Nihayah by Ibn Kathir, Vol. 5, pp. 3-4. (2) See: Ahkam al-Qur'an by Ibn al-Arabi, Vol. 4, p. 1771. (3) See: Nuzhat al-Muttaqin Sharh Riyad al-Salihin, Vol. 1, p. 222, Hadith no. (201). (4) See: Majmu'at al-Tawhid, p. 498. ¶

His servants and custodians claim that they and he are upon truth and correctness, while in reality, they are the furthest they could possibly be from Islam and the Muslims. There is no power and no strength except with Allah, the Most High, the Almighty. ¶

Third Topic: Allegiance and Enmity Towards Apostates (Murtaddin) ¶

Linguistically, 'riddah' means to return. Technically, it refers to a sane, adult Muslim returning from Islam to kufr (disbelief). Allah the Almighty says: 'And whoever of you reverts from his religion to disbelief and dies while he is a disbeliever—for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally' (Surah Al-Baqarah: 217). He also says: 'O you who have believed, whoever of you should revert from his religion—Allah will bring forth [in place of them] a people He will love and who will love Him [who are] humble toward the believers, powerful against the disbelievers' (Surah Al-Ma'idah: 54). ¶

The fundamental principle in dealing with an apostate in the Islamic state is that they are to be asked to repent for three days; if they repent, it is accepted, otherwise, they are executed after the evidence of their apostasy is established. This is based on the statement of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): 'The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful [to be shed] except for one of three [reasons]: a previously married adulterer, a life for a life, and the one who abandons their religion and separates from the community' (Narrated by Muslim). ¶

Regarding the Hadith, 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him,' Al-Shawkani stated: 'Indeed, apostasy (riddah) is one of the causes necessitating the killing of an apostate, regardless of the type of disbelief through which the apostasy occurred.' ¶

By 'separating from the community' (mufaraqat al-jama'ah), it refers to separating from the community of Muslims who adhere to Islam in belief, word, and deed. ¶

Collective apostasy occurs when a group in a land departs from Islam, as happened during the era of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him), and as is the case in our present time in most Muslim countries. Thus, their ruling is execution, just as Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) did, unless one returns to the truth, in which case his repentance is accepted. Jurists have differed over whether the abode of the apostates becomes a 'Dar al-Harb' (abode of war) upon the apostasy of the majority of its inhabitants, or if there are specific conditions for applying the label of Dar al-Harb to the abode of apostates. ¶

The position held by the majority of the Shafi'is, Ahmad, Malik ibn Anas, and Abu Yusuf is that the abode of apostates becomes a Dar al-Harb when its people apostatize and gain control over it. Malik stated that it becomes a Dar al-Harb once the laws of disbelief become manifest therein, and this is the primary condition according to the jurists. ¶

Jurists have not addressed many aspects regarding the treatment of apostates (murtadeen), such as seeking their assistance, associating with them, maintaining ties, or transacting with them, because, fundamentally, an apostate should not even exist among Muslims; it is either Islam or death. Therefore, we cannot formulate a policy for dealing with people who should not have been living in the lands of Muslims in the first place, as it is impossible to find a correct solution for a situation that is erroneous at its core. Consequently, the only solution for these apostates, who have spread throughout many parts of the Muslim world, is a serious call to Islam. Whoever repents, we accept it; whoever remains stubborn and persists in his disbelief, we kill him and purify the land of him. Apostates must be dealt with by force and firmness, as the process of persuasion may not be effective with them, given that the proof has been established against them through their prior entry into and knowledge of the laws of Islam. The consensus of the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) regarding warring against them has been established, and their approval of Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) in his war against them is proof of this. Al-Ismaili narrated from Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said: 'When the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) passed away, those of the Arabs who apostatized did so, saying: We will pray but not pay zakat. I came to Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) and said: O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah! Reconcile with the people and be gentle with them, for they are like wild beasts. He replied: You were slow to offer your support and have come to me with your desertion. A tyrant in the Age of Ignorance, yet a coward in Islam? What do you fear that I should reconcile with them? With fabricated poetry or slandered magic? Never! Never! The Prophet (ﷺ) has passed and revelation has ceased. By Allah, I will fight them as long as the sword remains in my hand, and if they refuse me even a rope (iqal) that they used to pay to the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), I will fight them for it.' Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) said: 'I found him more resolute and firm in this than myself, and he disciplined the people on matters whose burden became very light for me when I became their ruler.' Anyone observing the conditions of Muslims in the lands of Islam finds that there are many apostates in most Muslim countries enjoying the protection, care, and patronage of infidel, apostate governments, and in such a situation, a Muslim cannot... ¶

One must deal directly with these individuals as the perspective of Islam dictates, for they are caught within a major problem: the absence of the Islamic Caliphate that governs by Islam and implements all its rulings. However, among the matters that a Muslim must follow regarding them, after having advised and guided them, is to harbor enmity and hatred toward them, to turn people away from them and their sect, to neither marry a male apostate nor marry a female apostate, and to prevent the apostate from having guardianship (wilayah) over any Muslim man or woman, regardless of the closeness of their kinship, if one is able to do so. ¶

Al-Sarakhsi, the Hanafi jurist, says: 'If a Muslim apostatizes, his wife is separated from him, whether she is a Muslim or a person of the Scripture, and whether he has consummated the marriage with her or not.' ¶

Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 'If the Muslim who apostatized to disbelief did not consummate the marriage with the woman, the contract is void. If he had consummated the marriage, then the termination of the marriage is suspended until three menstrual cycles have passed from the date of the apostasy. If he returns to Islam before the completion of the three cycles, the contract remains; if he does not return, the woman is separated from him.' ¶

Hanafis maintain that the repentance of an apostate and his return to Islam after apostasy does not nullify the separation between the spouses, even if they are still within the waiting period ('iddah), because the separation occurred due to the apostasy, and thus it is not nullified by his return to Islam. The jurists state that if a man or woman apostatizes from Islam and then marries, the marriage is invalid according to all jurists because they have no religion; therefore, the marriage is void. It is not permissible for an apostate man to marry a Muslim, a disbeliever, or an apostate woman. This is the position of the Hanafis, Shafi'is, Hanbalis, Malikis, and the Imamiyyah. Likewise, an apostate has no right to perform a marriage (as a guardian). ¶

Or his daughter or a woman for whom he was a guardian before his apostasy, due to the inadequacy of his guardianship after apostasy. Imam al-Shafi'i held this view, as did the Hanbalis, Hanafis, and Imamiyyah. ¶

On this basis, whoever affiliates with Communism is an apostate, even if they claim Islam, because Communism is an atheistic ideology that denies the existence of God and rejects the Scriptures, the Messengers, and everything conveyed by the Creator regarding the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, as well as the resurrection, the afterlife, Paradise, and Hell. ¶

A question was posed to Al-Azhar by a citizen regarding this matter, and it was referred to the Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee. The question is as follows: What is the view of Islam regarding a young man who embraces Communism and persists in it, and has proposed to a Muslim woman? The young man himself bears an Islamic name and comes from a Muslim family. Is it permissible from the perspective of Islam for this marriage to take place? Advise us, may Allah grant you success. ¶

The Fatwa Committee replied: "Communism is a materialistic doctrine that does not believe in Allah or His Messenger, and it denies all religions, considering them superstition." Therefore, a Communist who believes in those atheistic principles is judged an apostate if he was a Muslim, and his marriage contract with a Muslim woman is forbidden, since Islam has forbidden the marriage of a polytheist (mushrik) to a Muslim woman; therefore, it is all the more prohibited for one who has no religion. ¶

As for the one who abandons prayer intentionally, his ruling is that of disbelief (kufr), based on the saying of the Prophet (ﷺ): "Between a man and disbelief and polytheism is the abandonment of prayer." And a man from the south asked the Sheikh... ¶

Abdul Aziz bin Baz stated in response to a question: 'One of my relatives does not pray; he is an elderly man, and I have advised him, as have many others, but he is extremely negligent regarding prayer, praying only rarely, and sometimes only during Ramadan or on Fridays. So, how should I treat him? Should I greet him if I find him in a gathering, or should I boycott him?' ¶

The Sheikh replied: 'Intentionally abandoning prayer is kufr (disbelief),' citing the aforementioned hadith. He told the inquirer: 'If your relative persists in abandoning prayer, it is incumbent upon you to shun him, refrain from greeting him, not accept his invitations, and refer his case to the Waliy al-Amr (the Muslim ruler) so that he may be asked to repent. If he repents, then fine; otherwise, he is to be executed, based on the saying of Allah Almighty: "But if they repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, then let them go on their way" (At-Tawbah: 5). This indicates that whoever does not establish prayer is not to be left alone. The evidence for this is abundant. We ask Allah to grant the mentioned person and others like him guidance and success.' ¶

The ruling of apostasy (ridda) encompasses everyone affiliated with the Ba'ath Party in Syria or Iraq, or any of its offshoots in other Islamic countries. This is because these parties are deliberately and persistently outside the judgment of Allah and His Messenger, declaring lawful what Allah has prohibited and prohibiting what Allah has permitted in many aspects of their systems. It is sufficient to look at their slogan, recited by one of their proponents via official radio: 'I have believed in Ba'ath as a Lord, with no partner unto Him, And in Arabism as a religion, with no equal to it.' This statement is pure kufr, and whoever doubts the kufr of one who makes this statement is himself a kafir. ¶

Similar to the Ba'ath Party is the Syrian Social Nationalist Party in Lebanon, which was founded by the spiteful Crusader Antoun Saadeh, and the Arab Nationalist Movement, which was founded by Constantin Zureiq at the American University. All of these parties are parties of kufr (disbelief) and misguidance. The evidence for this is that their founders were Crusaders harboring hatred against Islam, starting from Michel Aflaq, the founder of the Ba'athist parties, to the founders of the nationalist parties mentioned earlier. Although these parties are outside the fold of Islam in both thought and reality, deceived Muslims rush to join them like moths falling into a fire, due to the absence of correct Islamic consciousness from the theater of life. Yet, it is the duty of a true Muslim that his enmity toward these parties be more intense than his enmity toward the Jews, the Christians, and the idolaters. A question was posed by some Pakistani brothers to Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Abdullah bin Baz, stating: 'What is the ruling on those who demand the implementation of socialist and communist principles and fight against the rule of Islam? And what is the ruling on those who assist them in this demand, condemn those who call for the rule of Islam, taunt them, and slander them?' He answered this—after citing a number of evidences previously mentioned in an earlier section of this treatise—by saying: The scholars have reached a consensus that whoever claims that a judgment other than Allah’s is better than Allah’s judgment, or that a guidance other than the guidance of the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) is better than his (ﷺ) guidance, is a kafir (disbeliever) and a deviant. Likewise, they have reached a consensus that whoever claims it is permissible for anyone to exit the Shariah of Muhammad (ﷺ) or to implement something other than it, is a kafir and a deviant. Indeed, those who call for... ¶

Socialism, Communism, or other destructive ideologies that contradict the rulings of Islam are followers of misguidance and are greater disbelievers than the Jews and the Christians, because they are atheists who do not believe in Allah nor in the Last Day (1). End quote. ¶

Indeed, these parties adopting names that are hostile to Islam is an implicit proof of the disassociation of those parties from the 'Hizbullah' (the Party of Allah) and their fighting against it and all those who belong to it. Had these parties been adherent to Islam, they would have found in Hizbullah and its people the greatest slogan and substance that would have sufficed them from all the parties of Satan and from affiliating with them. ¶

Will those who are deceived become aware, will those who are sleeping awaken, and will the apostates return to Islam? This is what we hope for, and Allah is sufficient for us, and He is the best Disposer of affairs. ¶

(1) See: Al-Muslimun Al-Dawliyyah newspaper, First Year, Issue No. 1, Saturday 19/5/1405 AH, p. 10. ¶

Fourth Discussion: Affiliation with and Hostility towards those who rise against Authority. There is no doubt that people differ in their ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), their perspectives, and their assessment of matters; what one person sees as a benefit, another may see as corruption, and what one person believes to be the truth, another may believe to be falsehood. Therefore, Allah revealed the Book, sent the Messenger, and commanded both the ruler and the ruled to refer back to them. The Almighty said: 'If you differ in anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger' (1). Thus, if there exists a Muslim ruler with legitimate authority and a genuine oath of allegiance (bay'ah), it is inevitable that some will disagree with his opinion and differ with him in ijtihad. This is a natural matter as long as it does not reach the level of enmity, hatred, or the bearing of arms between the government apparatus and some members of the citizenry. In such a case, one of the conflicting parties may be termed a 'rebel' (baghin) against their adversary. If the individuals who dispute the authority and differ with it in opinion hold a distinct doctrine of their own innovation, then this doctrine and that dissent must be examined. If the doctrine they advocate and over which they differ with the authority is an atheistic/heretical one that contradicts... ¶

According to the fundamental principles of Islam, these people are disbelievers outside the path of truth and righteousness, and apostates due to their calling towards doctrines for which Allah has sent down no authority. Examples include the advocates of communism in Islamic lands or the various forms of socialism branched from it. This also includes the members of disbelieving parties that oppose the Party of Allah (Hizbullah) in whole and in part. Whoever rebels against the Muslim community (Jama’ah) and its legitimate Shar’i authority without a valid interpretation or legal proof is a 'baghi' (rebel) if they claim Islam, and a disbelieving apostate if they openly declare the symbols of disbelief or proclaim their allegiance to the disbelievers therein. ¶

Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) fought against those who withheld Zakat, and they were considered apostates by the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). What then is your opinion of those who call for communism in the lands of Islam—a system that denies the existence of Allah, His Books, and His Messengers? Furthermore, these advocates often find care and patronage from some ruling authorities in Muslim lands, and many individuals collaborate with them to dismantle Islam and mislead Muslims. They are not merely rebels; they are disbelieving, apostate combatants (muharibun) who seek to reach power to impose their disbelief and deviation upon all people from a position of strength. ¶

What applies to the advocates of communism applies to everyone who calls to parties of disbelief and principles of misguidance, regardless of their names or differing slogans. Indeed, anyone who rises against the Party of Allah and the Muslim community is a disbelieving apostate, regardless of their claims or affiliation with any form of disbelief, for disbelief is one unified creed. Rebellion or conflict over authority does not fall outside of nine categories, which differ based on the nature of the conflicting parties, as follows: ¶

(A) 1. A disbeliever revolting against a disbeliever. 2. A disbeliever revolting against a sinner (fasiq). 3. A disbeliever revolting against a believer (mu'min). ¶

(B) 4. A sinner revolting against a disbeliever. 5. A sinner revolting against a sinner. 6. A sinner revolting against a believer. ¶

(C) 7. The rising of a believer against a disbeliever (kafir). 8. The rising of a believer against a transgressor (fasiq). 9. The rising of a believer against a believer. The details for each of these situations are extensive; however, the believer must be supported against the disbeliever and the transgressor, regardless of whether the believer was first or last to attain power. Similarly, the transgressor should be supported against the disbeliever. However, if they are all disbelievers, they should be left alone, for Allah takes retribution from one by the other. If they are all transgressors and equal in their degree of transgression, one should remain neutral (i.e., dissociate from them). If some are better than others, one should support the one closer to the Shariah (1). If they are all believers and it is known that the truth is with one over the other, it is obligatory to support the party of the truth, in accordance with the Almighty’s saying: "And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah" (2). And based on the Hadith: "Support your brother, whether he is an oppressor or oppressed. They asked: O Messenger of Allah, we support him when he is oppressed, but how do we support him when he is an oppressor? He said: You restrain his hand" (3). If it is unknown which of them is in the right, one should remain neutral, as the Sahaba (may Allah be pleased with them) did during the conflict between Ali and Muawiyah (may Allah be pleased with them) (4). Thus, the 'Bughat' (rebels), as evident from the linguistic and terminological meaning, are the oppressors who transgress against the leadership of a rightful Imam or a just ruler, whether based on a mistaken interpretation of the religion or for worldly gain. Based on this, whoever rises against a ruler who is neither legitimate nor just in his rule is not a rebel (baghi). Ibn Hazm (5) affirmed that whoever calls to good (ma'ruf) or forbids evil... ¶

Or to remove an abomination (munkar), or to manifest the Quran and Sunnah and rule with justice, and he is truthful in his claim, then he is not considered a rebel (baghi); rather, the rebel is the one who opposes that (1). ¶

If the rebels oppose a just Muslim ruler, accusing him and his government of negligence in certain obligations, or preventing some permissible acts based on an interpretation (ta'wil) and ijtihad in which they are mistaken, then their case in such a situation is one of four scenarios: ¶

The first scenario: The rebels are scattered among the members of the Ummah, they have not openly declared disobedience to the Imam, and they have not secluded themselves in a territory, fortress, or stronghold. They are individuals, dispersed, whom the ruler's power can reach. In such a case, it is incumbent upon the ruler and the Ummah to leave them alone and not fight them, even if they show dissatisfaction with their words and complain about the actions of the ruler and his associates, based on their own understanding and perception in which they have erred. Thus, the rulings of the 'people of justice' (ahl al-'adl) apply to them regarding rights and obligations. It is also required for the ruler and the Ummah to clarify to them the corruption of their beliefs and the falsehood of their claims, so that perhaps they may return from the opinion they have adopted and the belief they have held. Those who uphold this view cite what Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) said to a group of Khawarij: "You have three rights over us: we will not prevent you from entering the mosques of Allah to mention His name, we will not initiate combat against you, and we will not withhold the fay (spoils/booty) from you as long as your hands are with us" (2). ¶

Faris: Born in Cordoba at the end of Ramadan in the year (384 AH), he grew up there and sought knowledge from its scholars. He was a faqih, muhaddith, usuli, hafiz, adib, and mutakallim. He had expertise in history, genealogy, grammar, linguistics, poetry, medicine, logic, and philosophy. He used to derive rulings from the Quran and Sunnah and criticized many scholars and jurists. They unanimously declared him to be misguided, warned those in authority (ahl al-hall wal-'aqd) against him, and forbade the common people from approaching him or taking knowledge from him. He was exiled and pursued, so he traveled to the desert of Labla in Andalusia, where he died in the year (456 AH). Among his many works are: Al-Isal ila Fahm al-Khisal al-Jami'ah, Al-Fasl fil-Milal wal-Ahwa' wal-Nihal, Al-Muhalla in Fiqh, Sharai' al-Islam fil-Wajib wal-Halal wal-Haram, and Al-Muqarrab fi Tarikh al-Maghrib. See: Mu'jam al-Mu'allifin, Vol. 7, p. 16. (1) Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm, Vol. 11, p. 98. (2) See: Al-Ahkam by Qadi Abi Ya'la al-Hanbali, pp. 38-39. ¶

The Second Condition: That the rebels have openly declared their beliefs and announced their disobedience without utilizing force, while remaining integrated within the Ummah and mixed with the citizenry. This is similar to the gatherings and demonstrations that occur in some Islamic countries, intended as a means of expressing disapproval and protest through the easiest and simplest methods to voice an opinion, regardless of the correctness or error of that opinion. In such situations, it is incumbent upon the ruler and the Ummah to invite these people to submit their dispute to the Book of Allah in an impartial court that possesses complete independence in rendering and executing judgments, in accordance with the Almighty's saying: 'If you dispute over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger.' Thus, it should be clarified to them—if they are indeed rebels—the corruption of their belief and the error of their understanding, so that they may return to the true belief and consensus of the community. If they refuse after the invitation, persuasion, and arbitration, it is permissible for the Imam to discipline only those who demonstrate obstinacy and disobedience with a ta'zir (discretionary punishment) commensurate with the error they have committed. This disciplinary action is not to be decided by the ruler himself—especially if he lacks knowledge of the rulings of Islam—but rather, it is to be determined by the judiciary based on Islamic legislation, such that the ta'zir punishment in such circumstances does not reach the level of capital punishment. This is due to the saying of the Prophet (peace be upon him): 'The blood of a Muslim who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah is not lawful except for one of three: the married adulterer, a life for a life, and the one who abandons his religion and separates from the community.' ¶

The Third Condition: That the rebels have separated from the rightful Imam and have taken refuge in a territory where they are distinct from the rest of the Ummah. In this case, their situation is assessed: if they do not refrain from fulfilling obligations and do not refuse the command of obedience, they are not to be fought as long as they remain in obedience and continue to fulfill their obligations. The evidence for this is that a faction of the Khawarij who rebelled against Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) resided in Nahrawan, and Ali sent Abdullah bin Khabbab to them as an administrator, and they remained in obedience to him for a time, while he maintained a state of peace with them. ¶

Fourth State: That a rebellious faction emerges against the rightful Imam, refuses to fulfill the rights due upon them, rejects the command of obedience, and acts independently in collecting revenues and executing rulings, regardless of whether they have appointed an Imam for themselves or not. In this case, it is mandatory to fight them until they return to obedience and re-enter the community, in accordance with the Almighty's saying: 'And if two factions among the believers should fight, then make settlement between the two. But if one of them oppresses the other, then fight against the one that oppresses until it returns to the ordinance of Allah' (Al-Hujurat: 9). ¶

When the rightful Imam assigns the task of fighting the rebellious faction to one of his commanders, it is incumbent upon this commander to warn them and invite them to peace, and to call for the Book of Allah to be the arbiter in what they disagree upon. A surprise attack on them is not permissible because they are neither polytheists (mushrikin) nor apostates (murtadin); rather, they are believing brothers and Muslim individuals, as the aforementioned verse indicates. Therefore, he must invite them with that which is best. If they refuse, he fights only those who are combatants, refraining from fighting those who turn their backs or flee. He does not kill their prisoners or their wounded, and they are not treated like the 'people of war' (ahl al-harb) among polytheists and apostates. Instead, their prisoners are treated with a dignified manner befitting them as Muslims. Whoever is not suspected of returning to them or fighting with them should be released upon this verification. Whoever is suspected of returning to them should be imprisoned until the war puts down its burdens, then he should be released and not imprisoned thereafter, as the power (shawka) they previously held has dissipated. During the war, their wealth is not taken as spoils, their women and children are not enslaved, and no polytheist should be sought for help in fighting them. Imam Ahmad prohibited seeking help from polytheists in fighting the people of war, so not seeking their help in fighting rebels is even more imperative. ¶

From the foregoing, the clear distinction and vast gulf become evident to us between the perspective of Islam... ¶