Chapter 42

However, whoever observes the current state of the Muslims finds the complete opposite, as the kuffar (disbelievers) have gained ascendancy over the Muslims within the lands of Islam. They serve as military advisors and executive experts, enjoying such vast privileges and extensive facilities that they attain material and moral recognition that is not granted to a Muslim who may be their equal or superior in knowledge and action. Thus, Muslim lands are crowded with millions of Christians, Jews, and idolaters holding various citizenships, while in reality, they are spies for the enemies—a fact that was revealed during the three wars with the Jews. (1) Meanwhile, many experienced and knowledgeable Muslims have migrated to Western and Eastern countries due to the mistreatment they receive within Islamic lands. The reality of the Muslims is the exact opposite of what it should be; they have become subservient in their dealings with the disbelievers and harsh in their dealings with the believers. There is no power and no strength except with Allah, the Most High, the Almighty. (1) See the book 'How the Aircraft Were Destroyed at Dawn' and the book 'The Fall of the Golan', authored by Khalil Mustafa, an intelligence officer in the Golan prior to the 1387 AH - 1967 AD war. ¶

Section Two: Entering the Protection of Disbelievers ¶

It is permissible for Muslims to enter into the protection of non-Muslims if the need arises, whether the protector is from the People of the Book—such as the Negus, who was a Christian at the time of the migration to Abyssinia and later embraced Islam—or if he is a polytheist. This is evidenced by what occurred with the emigrants to Abyssinia when they received news that the people of Makkah had embraced Islam. Thirty-three men were reassured by this report and returned. When they approached Makkah, they realized the falsehood of that news; thus, none of them entered without seeking protection (jiwar) or doing so in secrecy. Among them was Uthman ibn Maz'un (may Allah be pleased with him), who entered under the protection of al-Walid ibn al-Mughirah, who upheld his pledge of protection. ¶

Abu Salamah ibn Abd al-Asad entered into the protection of Abu Talib, as he was the son of his sister (the daughter of Abd al-Muttalib); however, the tribe of Banu Makhzum confronted him and refused to allow the protection offered to him to be honored. ¶

They said to Abu Talib: 'You have protected our nephew Muhammad from us, so what do you have to do with our man?' He replied: 'He has sought my protection, and if I do not protect my nephew (on his mother's side), how could I not protect my nephew (on my brother's side)?' Then Abu Lahab stood up and said: 'O people of Quraish! By Allah, you have troubled this old man too much; you continue to rebuke him for protecting a member of his own kin. By Allah, either you desist, or we will stand with him in whatever he stands for until he achieves his goal.' So, they left him alone out of regard for Abu Lahab. ¶

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ remained under the protection of Abu Talib until Abu Talib passed away, continuing to fulfill that responsibility. Furthermore, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered into the protection of Mut'im ibn Adi upon his return to Makkah from Ta'if. ¶

This is—self-evidently—conditional upon the fact that this protection does not result in harm to the Islamic da'wah, a partial or total concession of it, an alteration of some religious rulings, or silence regarding certain prohibitions. For to be content with such matters is the essence of 'muwalat' (allegiance/loyalty) to the disbelievers. Therefore, it is not permissible to enter into such protection if the price is the sacrifice of some Islamic rulings. The evidence for this is the stance of the Prophet ﷺ when his uncle Abu Talib asked him to consider his own safety and not burden him with more than he could bear—that is, not to speak ill of the idols of the polytheists. At that moment, the Prophet ﷺ prepared himself to leave his protection, refusing to remain silent about anything he was obligated to declare and clarify. ¶

The disbelievers of today are more malicious and cunning than those of the past. If Muslims were to seek protection and assistance from some disbelievers against others, offering them numerous benefits and facilities in return, they would never stand with the Muslims in a position of aid, support, protection, or care. Indeed, the Islamic lands have experienced this. ¶

Entering into protection treaties with Europe and America resulted in colonialism, the ruin of lands, the plundering of resources, and the fragmentation of Islamic countries. Egypt entered into a protection agreement with Russia, which resulted in Russian Jews spying on Egypt and demoralizing them, until the Jews were able to inflict a shameful defeat on Egypt in 1387 AH - 1967 AD. Allah Almighty spoke the truth when He said, 'And those who disbelieved are allies of one another.' ¶

The purpose of entering into the protection of major powers in our present era is not intended to support Islam and the Muslims, but rather to protect apostates and hypocrites within Islamic lands from the strikes of sincere Muslims, and to maintain the agents who grant their full affection and loyalty to the enemies of Islam. ¶

The countries that are subject to the protection of the West or the East in the Islamic world today only do so to protect the oppression, tyranny, and despotism they represent. They realize that they have no sincere loyalty in the societies they rule, except from a small group of opportunists and hypocrites. Therefore, these states resort to the protection of major powers to ensure their survival and to protect their foothold from falling and collapsing. ¶

What major powers and their agents in minor states fear most is Islam. Therefore, we see that any Islamic movement is monitored and tracked from the very first moment, and the agents strive with their masters to abort and eliminate it before it gains strength and becomes capable of resisting tyranny. ¶

Whenever any event occurs in a country, Muslims are made the victims of that event, and all disbelievers, from both inside and outside, hasten to tear Muslims apart and eliminate them with all the power they possess. ¶

Do we realize the reality of our enemies, and are we certain that disbelief is one creed and that the disbelievers are allies of one another, and that whoever seeks the protection of the major disbelievers against the minor disbelievers... ¶

Is this a case of seeking refuge from the scorching sand by jumping into the fire? ¶

Or are we still pinning false hopes on the protection of Eastern or Western powers for Islamic lands, despite having witnessed their conspiracies and aggression against Islam and the Muslims? ¶

By Allah, if Muslims were truthful with Allah, made their religion sincere for Him, and were honest with themselves and their brothers, they would not need to seek the protection of any disbelieving individual, let alone disbelieving states. They would not feel the fear and panic that shakes the earth beneath their feet. Allah the Almighty says: 'Whoever believes and does righteousness, there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve' (1). And Allah the Almighty says: 'Indeed, those who have said, "Our Lord is Allah," and then remained on a right course - there will be no fear concerning them, nor will they grieve' (2). ¶

(1) Surah Al-An'am, verse (48). (2) Surah Al-Ahqaf, verse (13). ¶

Third Section: Utilizing the Weapons of Disbelievers (Kuffar) ¶

Weapons are a type of commercial commodity that a Muslim is permitted to purchase from either another Muslim or a disbeliever. However, purchasing weapons specifically from a disbeliever must not result in showing allegiance, affection, or support for the enemies of Allah. It has been reported that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was informed that Safwan ibn Umayya possessed armor and weapons. He sent word to him—at a time when Safwan was still a polytheist—and requested the armor and weapons. Safwan asked, "Is this by force, O Muhammad?" He ﷺ replied, "No, but rather as a loan (ariyah); and they are guaranteed until we return them to you." So, he gave him one hundred sets of armor along with sufficient weaponry for them (1). ¶

From the above, it becomes clear to me that seeking assistance through some of the properties of the disbelievers, such as weapons and various types of equipment and industries, is permissible, and there is no disagreement among scholars regarding this (2). ¶

(1) See: Fiqh al-Sirah by Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Buti, p. 298. (2) See: Zad al-Ma'ad by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, Vol. 2, pp. 190-192. ¶

On the condition that this does not lead to allegiance to the disbelievers or affection for them. We may take weapons from them without showing them affection or love, just as they take petroleum and other goods from us at nominal prices, yet they remain hostile toward us and align with our enemies, let alone maintaining a peaceful stance toward us. ¶

Why, then, do we bow at their feet? Why do we open our hearts and our lands to them so they may spread corruption within them, in exchange for pieces of obsolete weaponry that neither satisfy hunger nor serve any purpose except when used against defenseless Muslims? This is at a time when they take from us far more than they give, while harboring malice, hatred, deception, and exploitation toward us. If we cannot dispense with their weapons and industries at present, we should at least dispense with their love and affection, especially given their disbelief in Allah. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him), who is our exemplar and leader in life, accepted weapons from Safwan bin Umayya while he was in a position of strength and superiority, and he did not deal with him like a begging, weak person; this is how we must deal with our enemies. ¶

However, the reality in our present time is that many states affiliated with Islam, when they conclude an arms deal with a disbelieving nation, rush to send hundreds of young men under the pretext of training on these weapons. These trainees return as machines operating machines, their creed destroyed, their morals distorted, and the love of kufr (disbelief) and hatred of Islam sown in their hearts. They return as enemies to their own nation, their own strength, and their own religion. What has the Ummah gained from this? It bought weapons from the enemies and handed over the very hands that operate those weapons to the enemy, so that the enemy could mold them according to its own perspective and desires. Consequently, the armies in most Muslim countries have become, in effect, military bases for the enemies. Thus, it is observed regarding the general armies in Muslim countries that they always stand to protect the tyrants and despots, and they increase in audacity and courage when their opponents are defenseless Muslims. Thus, the state of the Muslims with their armies has become like the one who said: ¶

"I taught him archery every day, and when his arm grew strong, he shot me." ¶

A question may arise: what is the alternative to this? The answer, as addressed in the issue of educational missions (scholarships), is to focus on the quality of individuals and the nature of their cultural formation, ensuring that individuals are fortified scientifically, morally, and intellectually against the enemies' schemes and malicious intentions. ¶

Furthermore, it is possible to bring in the necessary experts for weapons training for a limited period under strict supervision, in which the experts and trainees are guided to achieve the intended goal of purchasing the weapons and training with them. In this way, we can, at the very least, ensure the protection of individuals from being left alone with the disbelievers (kuffar), who might otherwise exert complete control over their minds and morals, as is currently the case in most Islamic countries. ¶

If some disbelieving nations monopolize certain types of weapons and refuse to sell them except at two prices: The first price is showing allegiance (muwalat) to their disbelief in both word and deed. The second price is the plundering of the country's and the people's resources in exchange for a few pieces of weaponry that neither nourish nor satisfy hunger. It is the duty of Muslims to refuse to engage in such transactions that involve the humiliation of Muslims by the disbelievers, and for Muslims to deal with the disbelievers from a position of strength, honor, pride, and defiance. Allah the Almighty says: "And to Allah belongs [all] honor, and to His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know." Therefore, it is not permissible to show allegiance to the disbelievers in exchange for weapons or anything else. No one would align with the disbelievers for the sake of their weapons, or to enter under their protection, or to fight alongside them, except a hypocrite whose hypocrisy is manifest. Allah the Almighty says: "So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into [association with] them, saying, 'We are afraid a misfortune may strike us..." ¶

It may be that Allah will bring about victory or a decision from Himself, and they will become regretful for what they have been concealing within themselves.(1) (1) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 52. ¶

Discussing the Sharia and Fiqh rulings on Jihad and combat, Dr. Muhammad Khayr Haykal clarifies that the purpose of Jihad in Islam is not merely territorial conquest or bloodshed; rather, its primary objective is the establishment of justice, the eradication of oppression, and the exaltation of the Word of Allah. It is a Sharia-mandated responsibility bound by political strategy and moral constraints. ¶

Fifth Section: Allying with the Kuffar (disbelievers) regarding Criminal Rights ¶

1 - First Subsection: Killing a Muslim for a Kafir (disbeliever). 2 - Second Subsection: Humiliating a Muslim to honor a Kafir. 3 - Third Subsection: Concealing the spies of the Kuffar and protecting their criminals. ¶

831 ¶

[blank page] ¶

First Section: Execution of a Muslim for a Kafir (Non-Muslim) ¶

It is a Shariah obligation for a Muslim to maintain alliance and support for his Muslim brother, provided that this does not lead to any sin or the suspension of any of Allah’s legal injunctions. Since the execution of a Muslim in retaliation for a Kafir suggests an alliance with the Kafir and supporting him against a Muslim, the Prophetic Sunnah has clarified this aspect, and the jurists (Fuqaha) have discussed it in a manner that requires no further elaboration. ¶

The jurists have reached a consensus (Ijma) that a Muslim shall not be executed for killing a Harbi Kafir (a non-Muslim at war with the Muslims). As for a Dhimmi (a protected non-Muslim citizen) or a Musta’man (one granted safe conduct), the majority of jurists also maintain that there is no execution in such cases. They have relied upon the Hadith: 'And that a Muslim shall not be executed for a Kafir,' and the Hadith: 'The blood of the believers is equal; the lowest among them can grant protection on their behalf, and they are a single hand against those who are outside them. Beware! No believer shall be executed for a Kafir, nor one bound by a covenant while he is in his state of covenant. Whoever introduces an innovation or harbors an innovator, upon him is the curse of Allah, the angels, and all the people.' ¶

(1) See Fath al-Bari, Vol. 12, p. 261 (Kitab al-Diyat). (2) Bidayat al-Mujtahid, Muhammad bin Ahmad al-Qurtubi, Vol. 2, p. 399. (3) Narrated by Al-Bukhari. See Fath al-Bari, Vol. 12, p. 261. ¶

And for all people» (1). It is also narrated from Amr ibn Shu'ayb, from his father, from his grandfather, that the Prophet (PBUH) said: «A believer shall not be killed for a disbeliever» (2). ¶

For this reason, the majority of jurists hold that a Muslim shall not be executed in retaliation (qisas) for a disbeliever, whether the disbeliever is a Dhimmi (protected citizen) or a Mu'ahid (one with whom there is a treaty). As for the Muharib (one at war), there is no disagreement regarding him, as he possesses no ambiguity that would make his killing prohibited or subject to retribution. The majority supported their position that it is not permissible to kill a Muslim for a disbeliever with the following arguments: ¶

1. One of the conditions of Qisas (retaliation) is equality, and there is no equality between a Muslim and a disbeliever. Islam is the fountainhead of dignity, while disbelief is the fountainhead of ignominy. Allah the Almighty says: «The companions of the Fire and the companions of Paradise are not equal; the companions of Paradise are the winners» (3). ¶

2. There is a standing ambiguity in the permissibility of the blood of a Dhimmi and a Musta'man (one granted asylum), because disbelief is an underlying cause that renders blood permissible, and the treaty of Dhimma is merely an accidental factor that prevented the killing while the underlying cause (disbelief) remains. It is part of fulfilling the covenant that a Muslim should not kill a Dhimmi or a Mu'ahid, but if the killing occurs, the verdict of Qisas does not apply, because the ambiguity that permits his killing is present, and with the existence of such ambiguity, the mandate for Qisas does not hold. ¶

Furthermore, the sanctity of blood and the imposition of Qisas on a killer are conditional upon Islam. The Messenger of Allah (PBUH) said: «I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; if they do that, their blood and wealth are protected from me, except by the right of Islam, and their reckoning is with Allah» (4). He mentioned that the basis for the sanctity of blood is Islam; therefore, the disbeliever’s blood is not sacred, and thus, retaliation is not taken against a Muslim for him. ¶

The Hanafis disagreed on this, stating that a Muslim shall be executed in retaliation for a Dhimmi, but not... ¶

Regarding the musta'man (person granted safe conduct), they cited several proofs, including the general verses of qisas (retaliation), such as the Almighty's saying: 'O you who believe! Qisas is prescribed for you in cases of murder,' the Almighty's saying: 'And We ordained therein for them: Life for life,' and the Almighty's saying: 'And whoever is killed unjustly, We have given his heir authority,' without distinguishing between one victim and another, one soul and another, or one oppressed person and another. ¶

Among their evidences is the narration by Rabi'ah ibn Abi Abd al-Rahman from Abd al-Rahman al-Baylamani that the Prophet (peace be upon him) ordered the execution of a Muslim for a dhimmi, saying: 'I am the most worthy of fulfilling my covenant.' However, al-Bayhaqi classified this narration as weak. ¶

The majority (jumhur) argued that even if this hadith were established, it would be abrogated (mansukh), considering that it pertained to the story of the musta'man whom Amr ibn Umayyah killed, whereas the hadith 'A believer shall not be killed for a disbeliever' was declared on the day of the Conquest of Mecca. ¶

The Hanafis also argued that the hadith 'A Muslim shall not be killed for a disbeliever' refers to those other than the mu'ahid (covenanted person), as it is a general expression for which there is a specific evidence excluding the mu'ahid. Abd al-Qadir 'Oudah favored this view. The Hanafis further reasoned that a Muslim’s hand is cut off if he steals the property of a dhimmi, so he must be executed if he kills one, because the sanctity of blood is greater than the sanctity of property. ¶

The majority responded by stating that this would be a sound analogy (qiyas) were it not for the explicit textual evidence prohibiting the killing. ¶

Regarding the argument that a Muslim should not be executed for killing a disbeliever (kafir), they argue that theft is a right of Allah; therefore, even if the stolen property is returned, the penalty (hadd) is not dropped, even if the victim forgives the thief. This is unlike murder, where qisas (retaliation) entails equality, and there is no equality between a Muslim and a kafir, whereas equality is not a condition for the penalty of theft. ¶

We do not wish to digress into a lengthy discussion of the arguments of both sides, as it would lead us away from the purpose of this treatise, which is to define the relationship and treatment between a Muslim perpetrator and a non-Muslim victim (dhimmi or musta'min) within the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam), and what every Muslim needs to know and adopt to determine their stance in accordance with the Islamic perspective on this issue. The essence of the matter is that if a Muslim kills a dhimmi or a mu'ahid (covenanted person), the Muslim ruler and judge must examine the motives and causes that led to the killing: were they in the interest of Islam and the Muslims, or for personal interests and material gains? Furthermore, they must examine whether the dhimmi or musta'min was fulfilling their obligations and honoring the contract and covenant or not. ¶

Therefore, the penalty for a Muslim who kills a dhimmi or a musta'min is not qisas (retaliation), but rather a discretionary punishment (ta'zir), which is subject to Siyasah Shar'iyyah (Islamic political governance). ¶

Thus, a just Muslim ruler has the authority to punish the killer with a ta'zir punishment less than death, or to treat them in a manner similar to how disbelievers treat their own people when they kill a Muslim. In most of their systems, they do not mandate qisas for a disbeliever who kills a Muslim; therefore, based on the principle of reciprocity (mu'amalah bi-l-mithl), it is considered more appropriate not to execute a Muslim for killing a kafir, acting upon the Almighty's words: 'And if you punish, then punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed.' ¶

However, Islam does not generally permit imitating the disbelievers in their injustice and arrogance. ¶

From the above, it is clear that the execution of a Muslim for a disbeliever (kafir) is not a fixed penalty (hadd) that cannot be increased or decreased. Therefore, the majority of scholars opposed the application of qisas (retaliation) for the killing of a disbeliever by a Muslim, based on the authentic hadith: 'And a Muslim shall not be killed for a disbeliever.' One who apostatizes from Islam belongs to the category of disbelievers. Thus, whoever affiliates with Communist parties, Ba'athist parties, Socialist parties, or Masonic organizations is a disbeliever and an apostate, for he has exited the Party of Allah (Hizb Allah) for the parties of disbelief and misguidance. Consequently, if a Muslim kills any individual belonging to those disbelieving parties, he shall not be punished as an intentional murderer, whether he killed the apostate before or after the invitation to repent (istataba), because any criminal act committed against an apostate is considered blood-money-free (hadar) as long as he remains in his state of apostasy. ¶

However, it is deeply regrettable that, due to the absence of a true Islamic government, if a Muslim today were to kill a spy for the Jews or Christians, or one of their monks who spreads corruption and atheism in the lands of Islam, the authorities—who are foreign to Islam and the Muslims—would seize him and execute him for the sake of that disbeliever who is at war with Allah, His Messenger, and the believers. The same applies if a Muslim were to kill a Communist who denies the existence of Allah and was subsequently dragged before a court presided over by judges whose only concern is worldly gain and meager wages; they would attempt, through various means and by relying on aberrant (shadh) legal opinions, to fulfill the ruler’s desire to execute a Muslim for a disbeliever who has apostatized from Islam. This is not mere allegation or slander, but reality. When one of the proponents of Communism in Morocco was killed by unknown persons, the authorities sought to pin the blame on sincere Muslims and conducted mock trials for some of them, resulting in life imprisonment for some. ¶

Some of them were sentenced to life imprisonment, and others have been imprisoned for five years without having even a mock trial (1). All of this is done to appease Communism and the Communists, who are enemies of Islam and the Muslims. Yet, this is an apostasy that lacks an Abu Bakr [to confront it]!!! ¶

And so that no one might falsely imagine that Islam encourages the shedding of others' blood without a legitimate cause, we say: when Islam mitigated the punishment from execution to something less, it did so by considering the 'shubha' (legal ambiguity) of disbelief, which prevents the equality of a Muslim's blood with that of a disbeliever. However, a Muslim who kills a Dhimmi (protected citizen) or a Musta'man (person granted safe passage) must be given a Ta'zir (discretionary) punishment in this world, provided that the Dhimmi or Musta'man has upheld their obligations toward Islam and the Muslims. Allah the Almighty has promised that whoever commits the aggression of killing a Mu'ahid (covenanter), whether a Dhimmi or a Musta'man, shall be deprived of Paradise if they do not repent from their sin. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: 'Whoever kills a Mu'ahid will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be perceived from a distance of forty years' travel' (2). ¶

This is part of Islam's protection for the Mu'ahid who adheres to the covenant, whether they are Jewish or Christian, provided they are within the Dar al-Islam (Abode of Islam). It has also been narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him): 'Beware! Whoever kills a Mu'ahid who has the protection of Allah and His Messenger has violated the protection of Allah, and he will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, for its fragrance can be perceived from a distance of fifty autumns' (3). ¶

These two Hadiths are used as evidence by those who hold the view that it is not permissible to exact Qisas (retaliation) from a Muslim [for the killing of a Mu'ahid]. ¶

regarding the infidel, because his affair is limited to otherworldly punishment rather than worldly (1). Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) favored this opinion in 'Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyyah' (2). What appears to me to be the most correct view is that it is not permissible to execute a Muslim for killing an infidel, regardless of the type of infidel, due to the authentic hadith narrated in this regard and because there is no equivalence (equal status) between a Muslim and an infidel on account of disbelief (kufr). Although this entire subject falls under discretionary punishments (ta'zirat) which are left to the discretion of the ruler and the judge, provided they are just and Muslim, they may consider it from the perspective of Shariah-compliant politics (siyasah shar'iyyah) and what achieves the general interest of Islam and the Muslims. But where are the rulers and judges who look at such matters through the lens of Islam? There is no power nor strength except with Allah. ¶

(1) See: Fath al-Bari, Vol. 12, p. 260. (2) See: Mukhtasar al-Fatawa al-Misriyyah, Ibn Taymiyyah, p. 465. ¶

Second Section: Offending a Muslim for the sake of defending a non-believer ¶

We have previously mentioned the ruling regarding retaliation (qisas) against a Muslim for killing a non-believer, and we have clarified the prevailing opinion on this. In this section, we address the issue of a Muslim assaulting a non-believer in a manner less than killing, such as slapping, causing injury, verbal abuse, or the like. Does the Muslim incur qisas or tazir (discretionary punishment) as if they had assaulted an equal fellow Muslim? Or is the assault on a non-believer viewed from a different perspective due to their status of disbelief (kufr)? ¶

The answer is that if a Muslim assaults a dhimmi or musta’man (covenanted) non-believer for worldly interests or material rights, it necessitates qisas or tazir, according to the punishments that fall under this category. This is the position held by Imam Abu Hanifa, who believes that a Muslim and a non-believer are equivalent to one another as long as the non-believer’s blood is protected by a covenant or security (aman). ¶

However, he holds that qisas applies absolutely, while Imam Shafi’i and Imam Ahmad believe that qisas applies only in cases involving bodily harm short of life. Imam Malik disagreed with this, as he holds that... ¶