Chapter 45

Some scholars hold that when a text in our Shariah narrates the legislation of those who came before us by way of reasoning and silent approval without denial, it implicitly establishes the validity of using it as evidence and acting upon it. This is what is understood from the story of Yusuf (peace be upon him) with the Aziz of Egypt, and Allah knows best. Regarding this issue, I maintain that a Muslim who wishes to work for a disbeliever or one who falls under that same ruling (such as apostates) should evaluate the nature of the work. Is it considered, by Islamic custom (urf), to be a profession that demeans one’s dignity or compromises one's honor? If the work is such as writing, teaching, or acting as an agent in trade and similar tasks, there is no harm in it, provided the person works with honor and dignity and is capable of quitting if they encounter any insult or mistreatment.\n\nHowever, work that implies humiliation, subservience, or contempt is not permissible for a Muslim to perform for disbelievers, or for those below them in status like oppressors and the immoral, as it destroys the honor of the believer which Allah has commanded to be preserved. Allah Almighty says: 'And to Allah belongs [all] honor, and to His Messenger, and to the believers.' Thus, a Muslim honoring himself is honoring his religion, and insulting oneself is insulting the principles and creed one upholds in life.\n\nExamples of work that entails humiliation for a Muslim when working for the enemies of Allah include being a cook, a porter, a laundryman, or a cleaner, or performing duties that are part of their religious rites or the specific characteristics of their faith, such as sweeping their churches, slaughtering swine for them, or producing or serving alcohol to them. Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was once asked by a builder: 'Should I build a nawoos for the Magians?' He replied: 'Do not build for them, and do not assist them in their kufr (disbelief).' ¶

[blank page] ¶

Thus, his actions with them are prohibited (haram); he is an ally to the enemies of Allah and is distancing himself from what Allah has commanded in His saying: 'So do not weaken and do not grieve, and you will be superior if you are [true] believers.' (1) (1) Surah Al-Imran, Verse (139). ¶

[blank page] ¶

Chapter Three Penalties Resulting from Allegiance to the Disbelievers (Muwala al-Kuffar) 1. First Section: The discretionary penalty (ta'zir) for those who show allegiance to the disbelievers. 2. Second Section: The divine penalty that is carried out according to the Sunnah of Allah (divine law) regarding those who show allegiance to the disbelievers. 3. Third Section: The afterlife penalty for those who show allegiance to the disbelievers. 885 ¶

A prevailing notion among us is that the work of 'Da'wah' (calling to the faith) is exclusively the domain of scholars, muftis, and seminary graduates, while the duty of the common person is merely to follow them. This viewpoint is incorrect in light of the Quran and Sunnah. Allah the Almighty states: 'And let there be [arising] from you a nation inviting to [all that is] good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong' (Surah Ali 'Imran: 104). In this verse, Allah has commanded the Muslims to form a group dedicated to the work of Da'wah. This verse addresses every Muslim, urging them to fulfill the obligation of Da'wah within their own sphere of influence. This work does not require any specific attire or academic degree. If even an ordinary Muslim invites those around them to righteousness and forbids them from evil, they are fulfilling this divine command. Da'wah is not limited to preaching and exhortation; it also entails demonstrating the truthfulness of Islam through one's own character. When a Muslim practices integrity and good conduct in their trade, employment, and domestic life, they are effectively calling others to Islam. Today, there is a pressing need to dispel this misconception and understand that the propagation of the religion is a collective responsibility of us all. ¶

Section One: Discretionary Punishment (Ta'zir) for those who ally with the disbelievers. We have previously clarified in the definition of 'Muwala'at' (allegiance/alliance) that it means loving the disbelievers, supporting them, endorsing them, and aiding them in ways that manifest their disbelief and strengthen their falsehood against the Muslims. Therefore, whoever participates in such matters in any form or manner is considered to be allying with or taking the disbelievers as allies, and shall be subject to a severe Shariah-prescribed punishment in accordance with the evidence established by Islamic Law. This punishment shall be carried out by the Islamic State, if it exists. This punishment varies according to the degree of allegiance to the disbelievers. Some forms of allegiance mandate the death penalty, while others mandate punishments less than death, varying in degree, as the penalty for allegiance is a discretionary (Ta'zir) punishment, according to the preponderant opinion of scholars. Thus, the death penalty applies to those who ally themselves completely with the disbelievers, or provide them with aid that constitutes full allegiance. ¶

Absolutely (meaning that killing is mandatory for one whose alliance amounts to apostasy from Islam, such as demonstrating obedience and agreement with the polytheists in their religion without overwhelming compulsion). Likewise, one who maintains a form of alliance with the disbelievers that constitutes a major sin shall be killed, such as those who spy on Muslims for worldly purposes while maintaining sound faith and hatred for disbelief. This type of alliance with the disbelievers does not warrant a ruling of apostasy for the perpetrator; rather, he is killed for his sin after the establishment of legal evidence (Shari'i bayyinah) for it. ¶

Ibn al-Qasim, Sahnun, and al-Qurtubi held this view. It is narrated from Ibn Sahnun that he said: '(His property belongs to his heirs).' (1) This supports the position that he is killed as a matter of ta'zir (discretionary punishment) rather than hadd (prescribed punishment), because if his killing were a hadd, he would be an apostate, and an apostate neither inherits nor is inherited from. (2) ¶

Imam Malik held the view that one who allies with the disbelievers through espionage or the like should be killed, and al-Qurtubi validated this, providing the reasoning: '(For such an act) harms the Muslims and corrupts their affairs.' (3) ¶

Ibn al-Qasim (4) and Ashhab (5) stated that the Imam should exercise his discretion regarding the appropriate ta'zir. Abd al-Malik ibn Jurayj stated: If he repeats this and it becomes his habit, he shall be killed because he is a spy. Ibn al-Majishun (6) also held this view, stipulating the condition of repetition. ¶

This condition [of requiring repetition] is justified by the fact that Hatib did not repeat such an act, and therefore, he was only reprimanded for the first offense. ¶

In my view, adhering to the condition of repetition is not necessary. The most apparent reason for refraining from executing Hatib (may Allah be pleased with him) is that he was a veteran of Badr, a quality present in him but absent in others; and Allah knows best. ¶

Based on this, anyone who spies on Muslims—while claiming to be a Muslim—on behalf of disbelievers, either as a primary agent or a mercenary, must be executed. He is either killed as an apostate (murtad) if he desires the victory of disbelief and the humiliation of Islam, or he is killed as a disciplinary measure (ta’ziran) for his grave sin if he cooperates with the enemies of Islam for worldly gain while maintaining sound belief, loving Islam, and hating disbelief. ¶

Therefore, every Muslim, upon discovering an individual or group loyal to the disbelievers, must report them to the Muslim ruler and the Muslim state (if they exist), so that the one possessing legal authority (wilayah shar’iyyah) may exercise his judgment regarding them through an independent Sharia judiciary, free from the hegemony and unlawful interference of the ruler. ¶

If the ruler is not upholding the law of God nor implementing it, the Muslim or the community of Muslims must reject/oppose this according to their ability and capacity. ¶

Regarding the obligation of killing those who aid the disbelievers against the Muslims through espionage and the like, Al-Shafi'i, Abu Hanifa, and Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on them) stated: 'Whoever among those affiliated with Islam assists the disbelievers through espionage and the like shall not be killed; it is understood from their words that they are to be disciplined (ta'zir) with something less than death' (1). ¶

The more correct opinion, as it appears to me from the two aforementioned views, is the opinion of capital punishment if this allegiance constitutes apostasy or is one of the major sins (kaba'ir). The basis for this issue is the Prophet's (ﷺ) handling of Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a (may Allah be pleased with him). When Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) said, 'O Messenger of Allah, let me strike his neck, for he has acted hypocritically,' the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) replied, 'He has witnessed Badr, and what do you know? Perhaps Allah looked at the people of Badr and said: Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you' (2). ¶

The apparent reason for refraining from killing Hatib (may Allah be pleased with him) is that he witnessed Badr; had it not been for this, he would have deserved the death penalty. The Prophet (ﷺ) provided a cause (witnessing Badr) that prevented execution, which is absent in the case of others. If Islam itself were the sole barrier to his execution, the Prophet (ﷺ) would not have cited a more specific reason, because when a ruling is based on a more specific cause, the general cause becomes ineffective. This is the strongest argument, and Allah knows best (3). ¶

This opinion is supported by the position of Umar (may Allah be pleased with him). It is reported that Ibn al-Jarud, the chief of Rabi'ah, seized Dirbas after it reached him that he was informing the polytheists about the vulnerabilities of the Muslims and intended to go to them. Ibn al-Jarud crucified him, so he cried out, 'O Umar!' three times. Umar sent for him, and when he arrived before him, Umar took up a spear and... ¶

He grabbed his beard and said: 'Labbayk, O Darbas'—three times. Then he said, 'Do not hasten, for he is the scribe of the enemy.' When he intended to go out to them, Umar said, 'You killed him based on an intention (hamm), and who among us does not have intentions?' Thus, Umar upheld Ibn al-Jarud’s ijtihad regarding him. ¶

Scholars have differed: If a person who allies with the disbelievers through espionage or the like is executed for that sin, does this serve as an expiation for his sin or not? ¶

Imam al-Nawawi stated: 'If an apostate is killed while clinging to his apostasy, then his killing in this state does not serve as an expiation for that (sin).' (End quote). ¶

Al-Shawkani favored this view, as he believed the apostate is killed while in a state of kufr, just as other disbelievers are killed during war. ¶

Based on this, it can be said that whoever allies with the disbelievers completely or shows absolute allegiance to them, then is killed for that without having repented before his death, falls under this severe warning and is exposed to the punishment of Allah in this world through execution, and in the Hereafter to the torment of the Fire and an evil abode—may Allah protect us from that. ¶

As for the allegiance to disbelievers that does not reach the level of apostasy or kufr, and is not classified as one of the major sins, the perpetrator of such acts is subject to ta'zir (discretionary punishment) less than execution, which is the opinion of Imams al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and Abu Hanifah (may Allah have mercy upon them). ¶

In this regard, Sheikh Sulaiman bin Abdullah bin Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhab says: 'Alliances with disbelievers for the sake of their worldly interests, even with hatred for them in the heart, is a cause of...' [End of page] ¶

For the purpose of ta’zir (discretionary punishment), boycott, and discipline, and similar measures that restrain the perpetrator and their likes from aligning with the disbelievers and compromising with them (1). End quote. ¶

Among the consequences of aligning with the disbelievers is that if the one who aligns with them is a ruler, then this alignment either amounts to kufr (disbelief) and apostasy from Islam—in which case the bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to the ruler and the government is nullified by the text of the Holy Quran and the consensus of the Ummah. Allah the Almighty says: {And never will Allah give the disbelievers a way [i.e., a means of dominance] over the believers} (2). Thus, it is not permissible for the disbelievers to have authority or dominance over the believers; and if such a state exists, it is undoubtedly contrary to the Shariah and cannot be sustained (3). This is because the authority of the disbelievers over the Muslims is the greatest avenue for their dominance and subjection. ¶

Allah the Almighty has commanded against submission and obedience to a ruler if he is a disbeliever, whether by apostasy or by original status. Allah the Almighty says: {O you who have believed, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in authority among you} (4). Thus, the obedience of the believers is mandatory by the text of the verse only when the ruler is a believer among the believers. One who becomes an apostate through his alignment with the disbelievers has exited the fold of being a Muslim, let alone being a believer among the believers. Consequently, he loses the right to be heard and obeyed by the Ummah, and there is no sin or blame upon them if they remove him from power, as he has lost his eligibility for this position due to his alignment with and support for the disbelievers. ¶

Sometimes, the alignment of a ruler and the government with the disbelievers is a major sin that does not reach the level of kufr, but it renders the government or the ruler fasiq (corrupt) and ja’ir (oppressive). Scholars have differed regarding the permissibility of rebelling against a fasiq or oppressive ruler, as has been indicated previously (5). ¶

However, the principle of tolerance toward rulers or governments characterized by immorality (fisq), oppression, or injustice in their allegiance to and close proximity with the enemies of Allah is a dangerous principle for the entity and existence of the Ummah. This is especially true at a time when violating a man-made constitution in a non-Islamic state is considered high treason, punishable by the harshest penalties, let alone dismissal and replacement. ¶

As for allegiance to the disbelievers that constitutes a minor sin (saghira) not reaching the level of major sins (kaba'ir), the duty in such a case is to advise the ruler or government with wisdom, good instruction, and argument in the best manner, so that they may turn back from the sin and error they have committed. ¶

If the allegiance to the disbelievers is committed by an individual or a group of people who do not represent the opinion of the ruler or the government, it is a duty to refer their case to the ruler or government to impose the necessary punishment, provided that the allegiance to the disbelievers warrants apostasy (riddah) or constitutes a major sin. We have previously mentioned that the preferred punishment in such cases is execution. ¶

As for when allegiance to the disbelievers causes the person to become a transgressor (fasiq) or disobedient, we have already indicated how to deal with transgressors and the disobedient regarding the issue of allegiance and enmity (al-wala' wal-bara') previously. ¶

Regarding how to deal with individuals who support or befriend the disbelievers in private matters—such as consuming the meat slaughtered by those who befriend disbelievers, marrying women who befriend disbelievers, or marrying off women to men who befriend disbelievers—this has... ¶

The scholars have differed on this issue: Is the one who takes the disbelievers as allies (awliya) ruled an apostate, such that he is treated according to the rulings of apostates regarding the consumption of their slaughtered meat and the laws of marriage, or is he considered to be in the same category as the disbelievers he allied with? ¶

If he takes the Jews as allies, the ruling for dealing with him is the same as the ruling for dealing with the Jews; if he takes the Christians as allies, the ruling is that of the Christians; and if he takes the Communists or polytheists as allies, his ruling is theirs. ¶

The basis of this disagreement lies in the interpretation of the Almighty’s statement: 'O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you – then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people' (Quran 5:51). ¶

The scholars have differed on this into several opinions: ¶

The First Opinion: This refers to the polytheists among the Arabs who were not Muslims. Because if it had referred to Muslims, then upon taking the disbelievers as allies, they would have become apostates. However, a person who apostatizes to Christianity or Judaism is not treated as one of them in terms of their (the People of the Book's) specific legal rulings; thus, their slaughtered meat would not be eaten, and if the apostate is a woman, she cannot be married, nor would any rights of guardianship (wilayah) be established between them, due to the Hadith: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' Therefore, he would be killed for his apostasy. For this reason, a group of exegetes favored the view that this refers to the polytheist Arabs, not Muslims who have apostatized from Islam by aligning with the disbelievers. ¶

The Second Opinion: The verse addresses the Muslims, informing them that whoever takes them—that is, the Jews and the Christians—as allies, is a disbeliever like them due to his alliance with them. And the ruling of kufr (disbelief) upon him does not prevent eating his slaughtered meat or marrying his women, provided they (those who apostatized) still identify with Islam. ¶

The people of Islam, even if they become disbelievers due to their beliefs or the corruption they commit, were considered by Abu al-Hasan al-Karkhi as falling under this ruling. ¶

The third opinion: It is narrated from Imam al-Shafi'i (may Allah have mercy on him) that he said: Allah, the Almighty, permitted the slaughter and women of the People of the Book specifically from the Children of Israel. As for those who were intermingled among them from other nations who adopted their religion, they are not intended by this verse, and it is not permissible to eat their slaughtered animals or marry their women, because they are not considered 'People of the Book' in the view of the Muslims. ¶

This opinion is also narrated from Umar and Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with them both). It is narrated from Ali that he said: 'Do not eat the slaughtered animals of the Christians of Banu Taghlib, for they only hold onto Christianity through the drinking of wine.' ¶

What I consider most weighted among these opinions is the view that whoever allies himself (tawalla) with the Jews, Christians, or other disbelievers is judged by his apostasy and disbelief. However, if those with whom he allies are Jews or Christians, or if he still claims Islam and occasionally manifests it, it does not prohibit eating his slaughtered animals or marrying women who share that description. ¶

But if those with whom the claimant of Islam allies are communists or polytheists, then his ruling is the same as theirs regarding disbelief and collaboration. This is what aligns with the apparent meaning of the verse of Allah, the Almighty... ¶

The Quran states: 'And whoever among you takes them as allies, then indeed he is one of them' (1). In the Hadith, it is stated: 'Whoever increases the number of a people is one of them' (2). Based on this, we conclude that those who show allegiance (muwalat) are subject to the same ruling as those they support, and they are treated in the exact same manner as the disbelievers whose side they have taken. ¶

(1) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse (51). (2) Narrated by Abu Ya'la and Ali bin Ma'bad on the authority of Abdullah bin Mas'ud in 'Kitab al-Ta'ah', and it has a continuation. Similarly, it was narrated by Al-Daylami and Ibn al-Mubarak from Abu Dharr as a mawquf narration (attributed to the Companion). See: 'Jund Allah Thaqafatan wa Akhlaqan' by Sa'id Hawwa, p. 183. ¶

Second Topic: The Divine Punishment executed according to the Divine Law upon those who ally with disbelievers and harm the believers. A reading of history reveals that the end of those tyrants who align with disbelievers and show hostility toward believers is one and the same. It appears there is a Divine Law (Sunnah Rabbaniya) that many Pharaohs and their soldiers are ignorant of due to their distance from God. This Divine Law is indicated by the Hadith Qudsi: 'Whoever shows hostility to a wali (ally/friend) of Mine, I have declared war against him.' Ibn Hubayra stated: 'One benefit derived from this Hadith is that excuses must be presented before a warning is issued.' The rationale is that since God has pointed out the hostility toward one who holds this status of alliance with Him, He has effectively offered an excuse to every listener—and indeed to everyone who knows such a person—that a person of this stature should not be treated with hostility, but rather should be loved and befriended. If one fails to do so, God has presented His excuse to them and alerted them that whoever treats a wali of God with hostility has earned the ultimate punishment for their enmity toward him. Thus, the Almighty warned him in the Hadith Qudsi: 'I have declared war against him,' meaning as a recompense for what he has done to [God's] wali. ¶

War originates from enmity, and enmity originates from opposition, and the ultimate end of war is destruction; and no one can overcome Allah, the Almighty. Thus, the meaning is that whoever shows enmity toward a Friend (Wali) of Allah—whether by word, deed, or both—has exposed himself to being destroyed by Allah. Therefore, the term 'war' is used to signify its necessary consequence: that Allah treats him as an enemy or combatant would. ¶

Hence, we may say: He who allies himself with the disbelievers and wages war against the believers has placed himself in the position of one who acts in opposition (mu'anid) to Allah the Almighty, through his enmity toward the Friends of Allah and his love for the enemies of Allah. It is as if he perceives himself in the position of one who is fundamentally at war with Allah, though he is far too insignificant and wretched to actually wage war against his Lord. Yet, his soul that commands evil (nafs al-ammarah) has deluded him with this false notion, leading him to show enmity toward those whom Allah commanded him to befriend and love, despite his knowing that this displeases the Lord and necessitates the arrival of punishment and total destruction. ¶

Al-Fakahani stated: (In this hadith, there is a severe warning and threat, for whoever wages war against Allah the Almighty, Allah will destroy him). This is a form of eloquent metaphor (majaz), for whoever dislikes what Allah the Almighty loves has opposed Allah, and whoever opposes Allah the Almighty has acted in defiance of Him, and whoever acts in defiance of Him, He destroys. Once this is established regarding enmity, its opposite is established regarding friendship (walayah). ¶

Thus, whoever befriends the Friends of Allah the Almighty, Allah honors and protects him. ¶

If mere enmity toward one of the Friends of Allah is a declaration of war from Allah the Almighty against the one who shows such enmity, then what of the case when the harm exceeds mere enmity, where they cause harm through word and deed, and not just toward one Friend, but by showing enmity toward all the Friends of Allah in every corner of the earth? ¶

Will this not be a harbinger of a war from Allah against them? Verily, Allah grants respite, but He does not neglect. The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) said: "Allah grants respite to the oppressor, until when He seizes him, He does not let him escape." (1) ¶

Allah the Almighty has promised to defend all the believers among His allies, let alone the defense of a single ally. The Almighty said: "Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed. Indeed, Allah does not like everyone treacherous and ungrateful." (2) ¶

It is the Sunnah (way) of Allah the Almighty to deal with those who take the disbelievers as allies by opposing their intentions, as the most important reasons that drive one to take the disbelievers as allies is the desire to obtain honor from them, as those with diseased souls imagine; however, Allah’s divine Sunnah prevents those dreams of theirs from being realized. ¶

The verses of the Holy Quran clarify to us clearly that no one takes the disbelievers as allies and seeks their closeness through affection and support except a manifest hypocrite. The Almighty said: "Let not the believers take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. And whoever does that has nothing with Allah." (3) ¶

Thus, He, Glory be to Him, negated the taking of disbelievers as allies for the people of faith and affirmed it for the hypocrites in His saying: "Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment. Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely." (4). And the Almighty said: "O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you—then indeed, he is one of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people. So you see those in whose hearts is disease hastening into them, saying, 'We are afraid that a misfortune may strike us.' But perhaps Allah will bring conquest or a command from Him, and they will become... ¶

They will regret what they had concealed within themselves (1). From this, it is evident that the hypocrites are those who take the disbelievers as allies, showing them loyalty through affection and support, while forsaking and turning away from the guardianship of the believers, pinning their hopes for honor and empowerment on their enemies, while forgetting the saying of Allah Almighty: {But honor belongs to Allah and His Messenger, and to the believers, but the hypocrites do not know} (2). ¶

The rulers and peoples of this nation have, throughout history, tested various forms of allying with the enemy, and they reaped nothing from it but disappointment, humiliation, shame, and disgrace in this world and the Hereafter. ¶

In Al-Andalus, the alliance with the enemy was a filthy game played by the petty kings (muluk al-tawa'if), until the Crusaders swept the ground from beneath their feet and cast them into the dustbin of history. This land has become a source of sorrow for every Muslim whenever the civilization and remnants of the Muslims there are mentioned, alongside the mention of those scoundrels who lost that 'lost paradise' due to their allegiance to the enemies of Allah, Islam, and the Muslims (3). ¶

Folly, treachery, baseness, and humiliation reached such a point that one of them would ally with a disbeliever against his own Muslim father. ¶

Thus, the disgraceful (Abu Abdullah Muhammad the Traitor) collaborated with the Crusaders, Ferdinand and Isabella, against his father, Muhammad ibn Sa'd (known as Al-Zagal), and against his uncle, until victory was achieved for the Christians over the Muslims. Thereafter, Ferdinand turned against Abu Abdullah, stripping him of his possessions, and this traitor handed over the keys of the last Islamic city in Al-Andalus to Ferdinand, weeping as women weep, over an Islamic country he had squandered—a betrayal that history will not forget, manifested in allying with enemies against his own kin. This traitor then departed (897 AH - 1492 AD), humiliated and despised, to Africa. ¶

(1) Surah Al-Ma'idah, verses (51-52). (2) Surah Al-Munafiqun, verse (8). (3) See: Encyclopedia of Islamic History / Ahmad Shalaby, Vol. 4, pp. 36-40. ¶