Refuting The Khariji Notion On Alliance With The Kuffar

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.
com/thefinalrevelation
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THIS COMPILATION ......................................................... 5

Section 1 ...................................................................................................................... 8
25+ TRAITS OF THE KHAWARIJ ...................................................................................... 8
Section 2 .................................................................................................................... 11
DISCUSSION FROM SALAF & KHALAF ON ALLIANCE OF A MUSLIM WITH THE KUFFAR ....... 11
Chapter 2.1 ................................................................................................................ 12
Tafseer & the Cause of Revelation of Surah Nisa Verse 92 .......................................... 12
Objection #1: Sahl ibn Baydah was coerced and thus takfeer was excused: ........... 25
Objection #2: Sahl ibn Baydah fought against the Messenger of Allah thereby
agreeing to killing him and this is known to be Kufr bil-Ijma` ................................ 32
Summary of chapter 2.1: ........................................................................................ 40
Chapter 2.2 ................................................................................................................ 42
The Madhab of Imam shafèe and shawafi Ulema regarding an individual or a group of
Muslims allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s) ........................................ 42
Chapter 2.3 ................................................................................................................ 47
The Madhab of Imam Malik and the Malikiyyah regarding an individual or a group of
Muslims allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)........................................ 47
Chapter 2.4 ................................................................................................................ 51
The Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa and the Ahnaaf regarding an individual or a group of
Summary of Chapter 2.4 ......................................................................................... 54
Chapter 2.5 ................................................................................................................ 55
Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

The Madhab of Imam Ahmad and the Hanabila regarding an individual or a group of
Summary of Chapter 2.5 ............................................................................................ 59
Chapter 2.6 ................................................................................................................ 60
A similar ruling from the Incident of Banu Ùqayl captive and Hudayfa and his father
radhiallahu ànhum ajmaèen ..................................................................................... 60
Chapter 2.7 ................................................................................................................ 64
Madhab of some other scholars of Sunnah regarding an individual or a group of
Summary and Conclusion of Section 2 ........................................................................ 71
Section 3 .................................................................................................................... 73
Understanding of the salaf on a muslims alliance to the kuffar by spying or providing
resources and support. ............................................................................................... 73
Summary and Conclusion of Section 3 ........................................................................ 84
Section 4 .................................................................................................................... 86
The madhab of najdi ulema regarding the types of alliances with the kuffar .............. 86
Section 5 .................................................................................................................... 93
Briefly refuting some kharji notions ........................................................................... 93
Chapter 5.1 ................................................................................................................ 94
The Kharji notion that Muslims can never exhibit friendliness towards war-mongering
Kuffar and if they do then it is Kufr al Akbar based on the apparent action of
friendliness. ............................................................................................................... 94
Chapter 5.2 ................................................................................................................ 99
The Kharji notion that doing business with Harbi Kuffar is Kufr al-Akbar at all times . 99
Chapter 5.3 .............................................................................................................. 101
The Kharji notion that many scholars have said whoever allies with them then he is of
them in ruling .......................................................................................................... 101
Chapter 5.4 .............................................................................................................. 104

The Kharji notion the outcome of the Alliance determines if the one who allied
remains a Muslim or a Kafir .................................................................................... 104
Section 6 .................................................................................................................. 110
Conclusion and Reminder ......................................................................................... 110

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THIS COMPILATION
Tuesday, 17th of November, 2015, The Independent Newspaper published an article with
a heading that reminded me of the reality I always knew. The top 10 countries which
suffer the most from terrorism - most of which are Muslim 1
For the time being, let us avoid discussing who started this chaos in the Muslim world and
who is funding it. Let us leave this politics aside for this document. Let us shift the focus
towards the reason why Muslim states are afflicted with internal terrorism - which in the
Islamic terminology refers to those causing fitan & fasad such as the khawarij.
Havent we all seen the amount of chaos, destruction and hatred spread by the khawarij
and pro-khawarij groups in the world, especially the Muslim states? Killing innocent
civilians Muslims and non-Muslims bombing prayer places Muslim and of non-Muslim
bombing market places, civilian areas, and most of these are inside Muslim nations.
Families have been broken, teenage children running away for illegal activities, Charity
workers killed, doctors threatened, and what is worse is that all of these kharji acts are
justified by wrongly twisting the Islamic texts.
They have no right to twist and falsely manipulate the Islamic texts and it is for this reason
that this e-book is compiled with the hope that Allah subhanahu wa ta`la guides those who
are astray and equips the Muslims with the necessary resources to debate and counter this
Hijack on Islamic values and belief. The media and world seems to connect these
Khawarijism with Islam forgetting much of their own racist and colonist recent past.
Nevertheless, how are we to battle this pressure and strings of false accusation hurled
against Islam due to the actions of a tiny few? We dont have media outlets as powerful as
the western nations to broadcast our clarifications. We dont have enough English
speaking Muslims who are willing to translate and debate so as to help remove these
misconceptions and refute the false accusations.
The main motive of this compilation is to refute the kharji notions on the topic of Alliance
with the disbelievers; notions due to which they attack and harm innocent lives; notions
due to which they twist the Islamic texts to their political advantage and ambition. Much of
1
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-top-10-countries-which-suffer-the-most-
from-terrorism-most-of-which-are-Muslim-a6738121.html

these concepts by the will of Allah will be responded to in this e-book. Though the
philosophies of the Khawarij and Takfeeriyoon are not restricted to the topic of Alliance
alone, nevertheless speaking about all of their false notions would be very tedious thus this
undertaking is restricted to one topic only.
The central reasoning or argument of the khawarij rotates around the issue of takfeer
excommunicating out of Islam which they use to their political advantage. They falsely
use the concept of Takfeer to inflict more harm on the innocent only to fulfil their desires
and this will be refuted in this e-book bi idhnillah.
This is a humble effort with the hope that Allah makes this work beneficial for all strands
of society and especially useful to those willing to participate and help refute the kharji
notions and accusations on Islam.
All the updates, corrections and modifications if any will be published only on this link :
http://fahmalhadeeth.com/refuting-the-khariji-notion-on-alliance-with-the-kuffar/ . You
may download and share the pdf from the same link as well.
Some recommended articles for Muslims that would serve as a good pre-requisite to this
are:
1. The obligation and importance of seeking knowledge from the scholars: http://the-
finalrevelation.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-obligation-and-importance-of.html
2. The Obligation of seeking knowledge via the understanding of the salafus saliheen:
http://fahmalhadeeth.com/the-obligation-of-seeking-knowledge-via-the-
understanding-of-the-salafus-saliheen/
3. Warning from self-interpretation of Quran and Hadeeth: http://the-

finalrevelation.blogspot.com/2014/02/warning-from-self-interpretation-of.html

Draft finalized on 19th November, 2015
www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.the-finalrevelation.blogspot.com
For corrections, feedback, criticism, permission to publish this e-book please e-mail
thefinalrevelation@hotmail.com or drop in a message at our facebook page
www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Section 1
25+ TRAITS OF THE KHAWARIJ
Every trait mentioned hereunder has come true in no less than at the very least (I repeat at
the very least) 5 major incidents caused by the khawarij of our time which makes it so easy
and feasible to match the description. You can find them in every news post. So when you
read what the khawarij do today and compare it with what you know of their traits
described in this post you will see an almost ditto resemblance.
Please remember: Having one or two traits from the below does not necessarily make
someone a kharjee. This is a misconception that it does. However in the light of whatever
is happening since decades and now in front of our eyes, many of these traits combined
convince their resemblance and imitation with the khawarij.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1) About this article and what does it contain?
2) DISTINGUISHING TRAITS OF THE KHAWARIJ - ESPECIALLY THE MODERN DAY ONE'S
TRAIT #1: Self-interpretations of Islamic texts
TRAIT #2: The First to Make Takfeer Back Then And Even Today
TRAIT #3: Their Association with Iraq and Shaam And They Being the Cause For Stirring
Destruction Therein
TRAIT #4: They make Killing halal (and a piece of cake) yet strongly implement hudood
against theft such that the people find their belongings safe and sound but not their lives
TRAIT #5: They make takfeer of every party and every sect of Muslims who do not submit
to their Islamic and political view.

TRAIT #6: They Denounce All Muslim States As Darul Kufr And Only Legalizes Their Land Of
A Khalifah To Be Darul Emaan And They Consider Attacking And Destroying Muslim Lives
And Property To Be More Violable Than That Of The Kuffar Or Actual Mushrikeen Enemy
TRAIT #7: They legalize killing women children and weak for "petty" issues.
TRAIT #8: They label everyone who opposes them as murjià and consider every opponent
on kufr
TRAIT #9: They will not cease to appear until the last of them comes with Al-Masih Ad-
Dajjal.
TRAIT #10: They always come out during a time of Fitan. A time when the Muslims are
already facing trials and calamities or when the Muslims are already engaged in battle
against their enemies
TRAIT #11: They Attack In Masaajid And Places Of Worship Of Non-Muslims
TRAIT #12: They consider Muslim women from opposite fighting party halal to be enslaved
TRAIT #13: Their Plot And Plan Always Harms The General Muslim Population
TRAIT #14: The Khawarij And Those Who Support Them Are Usually Harsh, Ruthless And
Quick To Judge And Criticize
TRAIT #15: They Due To Their False Interpretations Fight Until There Is Fitnah Instead Of
Doing The Opposite
TRAIT #16: They instigate teenage girls, wives and family members to break away from
their family and responsibility to join their so called empire
TRAIT #17: They Fight For The Sake Of Their So Called Caliphate Even At The Expense Of
Going Against The Cyrstal Clear Sunnah
TRAIT #18: They Seek To Implement Religious Affairs without Implementing Security
TRAIT #19: They call their fellow men and followers in various non Muslim lands to break
their covenants even when they have been given security and safety as per the law they all

agreed to abide by when they got the visa or when they decide to reside in those non
Muslim lands
TRAIT #20: They Do Not Consider Obedience Towards The King/Ruler
TRAIT #21: They Will Spare The Idol Worshippers And Not Think Twice Even Before Killing
Muslims
TRAIT #22: Their Actions Cause So Much Fitnah That They Are Considered To Be The Worst
Of Creations
TRAIT #23: They Test Muslims In Accordance To Check If People Ally With Them Or Not
And If Not (Even Politically) They Consider Killing Him Halal
TRAIT #24: They Will Be Mostly Young In Age; Wise, Learned And Old Scholars Wont
Accompany Them And Those Who Do Will Do So Out Of Fear Due To Them Controlling
Their Lands
TRAIT #25: They Dont Have Actual Real Scholars Among Them
TRAIT #26: They Are Excessive and Over Acting In Everything From Killing To Establish
Hudood In 50 Meter War Torn Dead Body Lying Starving So Called Caliphate
3) Miscellaneous Traits That Are Found In The Khawarij But The Trait In Itself Does Not
Necessarily Make One A Kharji
4) ANSWERS TO SOME DOUBTS
Doubt #1: Are They Enjoining Good And Forbidding Evil From Their Destruction At Such
Sensitive Times In Accordance To The Islamic Principles?!
5) CONCLUSION
6) EXTRA: A Summary of the Beliefs and Targets of ISIS BY Shaykh Faysal bin Qazzaar
See their traits and evidences for the same from Quran and sunnah here: http://the-
finalrevelation.blogspot.com/2015/08/25-distinguishing-traits-of-khawarij.html

Section 2
DISCUSSION FROM SALAF & KHALAF ON ALLIANCE OF A MUSLIM

WITH THE KUFFAR
The Discussion from salaf and khalaf that the mere alliance or aiding of a Muslim with
the Kuffar against another Muslim does not in and of itself make him a kafir or
tantamount their actions to kufr al-Akbar:
The khawarij of today use self-interpretation to come to weird conclusions - which were
never encouraged, nor are a part of Islamic law according to the early salaf. They, along
with their false taweel, also base some of their views on the ijtihadi errors of some scholars
of the 18th-19th century. A unique trait of the khawarij and ilk is when you refute and
reply to them using the statements and explanations of the earlier salaf, they reject it
outright as if the salaf are a piece of junk and adamantly stick to their personal 21st
century interpretation or 18th-19th century interpretations which oppose the aslaaf of this
Ummah. This trait is especially widespread and embedded among khawarij and their
sympathizers: The disease of self-interpretation and rejection of following the salaf and
their fahm.
The khawarij claim that the mere alliance of a Muslim with a kafir against another Muslim
is kufr al-Akbar. In other words they do not hesitate to make the takfeer of a Muslim man
allying with his Christian business partner against his Muslim neighbour to usurp his
property.
Or Takfeer of a Muslim college kid allying with his Hindu friends and beating up fracturing
other Muslim kids for some college issue.
As per their logic and narrative the takfeer of above two Muslim individuals/groups would
not be far-fetched to have come from the khawarij.
The salaf however did not look upon this subject in this way. This is no doubt a very
detailed subject, however an attempt to summarize this briefly will be seen below.

Chapter 2.1
Tafseer & the Cause of Revelation of Surah Nisa

Verse 92
What follows is the brief commentary of a verse that includes a situation wherein a Muslim
may be found in the ranks of the enemies during a battle; and the fataawa of our aslaaf
regarding allying with the kuffar against Muslims being kufr al-akbar or not.
Allah said: And never is it for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. And
whoever kills a believer by mistake - then the freeing of a believing slave and a
compensation payment presented to the deceased's family [is required] unless they give
[up their right as] charity. But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he
was a believer - then [only] the freeing of a believing slave; and if he was from a people
with whom you have a treaty - then a compensation payment presented to his family
and the freeing of a believing slave. And whoever does not find [one or cannot afford to
buy one] - then [instead], a fast for two months consecutively, [seeking] acceptance of
repentance from Allah. And Allah is ever Knowing and Wise.
*Quran surah nisa verse 92+
Under this verse of surah nisa verse 92 {

]
imam shafèe quoted the hadeeth:
:

:

: :

Some people took refuge in the tribe of khathàma. So when the Muslims attacked (the
tribe) those who had sought refuge (from being killed) by gesturing via prostrating
(showing they are Muslims) yet Muslims killed some of them (by mistake thinking them to
be one). This reached the Prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam so he said: Give them (the
family of those killed by mistake) half of the blood money 2 as they used to pray (i.e. they
2
22/22( ") ":

were Muslims). Then he àlayhi salatu was-salaam told us that: Listen! I am free from
every Muslim who resides with the Mushrikeen. So we said Why, oh Messenger of
Allah? He said: Their fires should not be visible to one another 3
" . : .
, ........
, , , :
" , , , , ,
Shaykh ul-Islam Imam ibn Qudamah said:
We do not know of any differing opinion among the scholars; they are agreed that the diyah in the
case of accidental killing must be paid by the aaqilah (family). Ibn al-Mundhir said: There is
consensus on this matter among all those scholars from whom we learned. There are proven
reports from the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which state that
he ruled that the diyah must be paid by the aaqilah, and the scholars are unanimously agreed upon
this point.
What this means is that because accidental harm may happen frequently and the diyah for killing a
human being is great, making it obligatory for the offender and taking it from his wealth may be
unfair to him. So wisdom dictates that it shoukd be imposed on the aaqilah so as to help the
offender, and reduce his burden, if there is an excuse for what he did, but he alone has to offer the
kafaarah (expiation).
3
Imam al-Khattabi writes:
"Different scholars have interpreted this hadith in different ways. One is that they are not equal in
their hukm (meaning they both have different rulings pertaining to them). Others say this hadith
means Allah has differentiated between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Kufr, hence it is not allowed for a
Muslim to live in the land of the unbelievers since when they will lit their fire [1], he will be seen to
belong to them. It is also an evidence that it is disliked (makruh) for a Muslim to go to Dar al-Harb
for trade and to stay there for more than four days."
[Ref: Maalim us-Sunnan by the giant Imam al-Khattabi]
[1] this is because back then, the people of a tribe/army/group/etc used to live together and thus
their huts/houses were nearby therefore the fire they used to light for heat or simple source of light
used to all be seen by each other as their houses/camps were nearby. This seemed like one whole
group to anyone coming from outside for an attack or simply seeking a matter or hospitality.
Mufti Taqi Usmani hanafi hafidhahullah said: This is why some jurists (fuqaha) have mentioned that
Muslims living in Dar al-Kufr and increasing their numbers for the sake of making money takes away
a persons adala (uprightness).
[Ref: Takmila Radd al-Mukhtar 1/101]

Imam shaf ì discussing the above verse which does not stipulate diyah or qisas for killing a
Muslim who lived among or in the enemy territory or land of mushrikeen, said:
( )

.
( ) ;
{
} { }

-
If this narration is established then the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam)
) and (by saying the words I am free from every
gave this to them voluntarily (
Muslim) he wanted to inform them that he was free from every Muslim who was
However the situations and times now have changed, meaning back then there wasnt any such visa
system restricting Muslims from entering Muslim lands. Now even if one wanted to leave the lands
of kufr and migrate with a good job to land of Islam he couldnt. But in all honesty a vast majority of
people prefer living in dar al-kufr than in the Muslim lands due to benefits they receive in those
lands which is not a bad thing in itself, however in the long run many Muslims end up facing a lot of
fitnah leading to developing feelings of inferiority complex, unawareness of Muslim culture, Islamic
knowledge and much more.
Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal- Ash-Shaykh rahimahullah said:

.
.
.
These two hadeeths contain a stern warning and emphatically forbid living with the mushrikeen and
mixing with them. They also indicate that it is obligatory to migrate from the land of shirk to the
land of Islam. This applies to the one who is not able to practise his religion openly. As for the one
who is able to practise his religion openly, he is not obliged to migrate, rather it is mustahabb in his
case, but it may not be mustahabb if his remaining among them serves a religious purpose such as
calling them to Tawheed and the Sunnah, and warning them against shirk and bidah in addition to
being able to practise his religion openly.
[Ref: 77/2( "])

living amidst Mushrikeen so that they learn that they had no right to
diyah(compensation) nor qisas (retaliation).
And this incident occurred before the revelation of the verse [surah nisa verse 92above]
and the verse was revealed after this incident occurred and then he àlayhi salatu was
salaam said the statement I am free from every Muslim along with this verse.
And the revelation of the verse (i.e. its apparent meaning) suffices itself from the need of
any taweel (explanation because it is self-explanatory) for Allah àzza wajal ordained in
the first verse of the ayah regarding the diyah and kaffarah that is to be given to a
Muslim killed by mistake and similar commandments were given in the latter verses
regarding the situation when we (Muslims) and they (non Muslims) have an
understanding (i.e. peace treaty etc.). But in between these two verdicts is the one
wherein Allah said:
But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then
*only+ the freeing of a believing slave [Surah Nisa verse 92]
And Allah did not mention the requirement of any diyah as a compensation for this type
of Muslim (residing in darul harb) So the enemy territory and their residence was
permitted (for Muslims to attack) and it was the sunnah of the Messenger of Allah
(sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) that once the message of Islam was conveyed to the people
(and if they didnt submit) then he attacked them.
Thus in this is the evidence against attacking a place or residence which if attacked
would require (obligate) the payment of qisas or diyat and this is the command of Allah
:
, ,

.
And if a Muslim were to enter the lands of enemies and he gets killed by another Muslim
there then upon the killer is the freeing of a Muslim slave but he doesnt owe any qisas
because he killed him while he didnt recognize him to be a Muslim from his apparent
appearance. Likewise is the case when a Muslim attacks and kills a Muslim or meets a
Muslim who was in the company of mushrikeen inside their house and he kills this
Muslim and likewise if a Muslim kills another Muslim in one of their camps or in one of

their (enemy) routes then all of these acts will be labelled as a mistake because he did
not intend to kill him because he knew he was a Muslim, even if the attack was on
purpose yet he didnt attack the Muslim because he was a Muslim. [this is because
attacking the enemy territory is halal and if a Muslim happens to get killed amidst this
then it is a mistake unless the killer killed the Muslim knowingly that he is a Muslim]
[Ref: Al-Umm 6/37 or:

http://library.Islamweb.net/hadith/display_hbook.php?indexstartno=0&hflag=1&pid=1576
1&bk_no=47&startno=2]
And this is also the explanation which Imam al-Muzni (D. 264 A.H) a student of Imam
shafÌ. He in his Mukhtsar said that under the verse of surah Nisa 92, Imam shafÌ said:
Meaning he resides amidst a people who live in the enemy territory and there is no diya
nor qisas if he kills a Muslim among them provided he didnt know he was a Muslim in an

attack [
] or he kills
him in an enemy encampment or he finds him among their ranks or in their houses or
likewise *provided he didnt kill him purposely after knowing he was a Muslim]
[Ref: Mukhtasar al-Muzni 361]
And this also what is understood by the faqeeh as-salafi Yahya ibn abil-khayr al-Ìmrani4 (D.
558 A.H) and he is counted among the senior most shafÌ scholars. He said the verse:
( )
.
But if the deceased was from a people at war with you and he was a believer - then
[only] the freeing of a believing slave. [Nisa 92]
4
He was a salafi in Àqeedah as is mentioned by the muhaqqiq of his book al-Intisaar fi radd àla
Mu`tazila al-qadariyyah al-ashrar. The muhaqqiq is Dr. Saòod ibn Àbdul Àzeez al-Khalf in his
Muqaddamah of his tahkeeq (1/22-23). Imam Yahya has refuted ashaìra and qadariyyah and
mu`tazila well and defended the madhab of hanabila and ahlus sunnah well. The scholars benefited
from his work and praised it.

- includes or is regarding (a situation wherein) if a Muslim man in the land of mushrikeen
was present with them (idolators) in the war and was attacked and killed by a Muslim
from the Muslim party
[Ref: al-Bayan lil-Ìmrani (11/447); Majmoo` sharh al-Muhaddhab 5/19 shamela]
Imam ibn Taymiyyah in the tafseer of this same verse said likewise. Shaykh ul-Islam said:
And it is said this (Muslim described in the above verse) is about those who are dressed
in the appearances5 of enemies. Meaning he was among their ranks (mithla ay-yakoonu
fi saffihim). Then the killer (among the Muslims) will have an ùzr (excuse) because he
was appointed/commanded to kill (fayu`dharul-qaatilu, Liannahu mamurun biqitaalihi).
So the binding of diyah on him is dropped (fatasqutu) but the expiation (kaffarah by
freeing a Muslim slave or what is described in surah nisa verse 92) becomes wajib. And
this is the statement of ash-shafÌ and Ahmad in one of their two statements
[Ref: Minhaj as-sunnah (5/116) and Majmoo` al-fatawa (19/221)]
A hadeeth that further proves the above interpretation is the narration of Sahl6 ibn Bayda
(radhiallahu ànhu). The above interpretations and explanations of scholars show that they
did not consider a Muslim living amidst or aiding the kuffar against Muslims or simply
aiding them in itself as an action of kufr al-Akbar. Yes the mere fact that the compensation
5
The Arabic literally says: huwal-ladhi yakoonu àlayhi libasu ahlil-Harbi those who are dressed
like the ahlul harb meaning their war armour or resemble them in language or appearance etc.
which could confuse the attacking Muslim.
6
He is sahl not suhayl as some have written it in Arabic. They both are brothers (sahl and suhayl).
Shaykh dr. Hatim al-Àwni has explained this difference in his book wala al-Bara by quoting
numerous reference points. See for example Maghazi of Waqidi (109); amwal of Abi Ùbayd (1/209
no. 330);
Imam Ibn Saad said in At-Tabaqat al-Kubra (4/213) regarding Sahl ibn Baydah:
He became Muslim whilst in Makkah, and he concealed his entry into Islaam, and the Quraish took
him out along with themselves to Badr so he participated in the battle of Badr alongside the Idol-
worshippers. He was then taken captive by the Muslims. Àbdullah ibn Masòod bore witness for
him that he had seen him pray in Makkah, and he was thus freed. And for those who narrate this
story about Suhail b. Baydaa are mistaken, for Suhail b. Baydaa embraced Islaam before Àbdullah
ibn Masòod and he did not hide his Islaam; and he migrated to Madeenah and he participated at
the battle of Badr alongside Allaahs Messenger as a Muslim and there is no doubt regarding that..
And this hadeeth is actually concerning Sahl ibn Bayda

of killing him is far less than that of killing one living in dar al-Islam is a proof enough to
show the sin or karaha of living and aiding the kuffar yet it does not necessarily make him a
kafir. The conditions for an action to become Kufr al-akbar are different and needs to be
met.
A narration that shows even if the Muslims ally with the Kuffar against Muslims, they do
not become disbelievers by the mere act of allegiance for alliance could be due to many
reasons such as coercion, such as greed for wealth to pay off ones debt, such as the mere
anger of revenge and so on.. The following ahadeeth explain these.
Muhammad bin Ishaq reported that Àbdullah bin Àbbas said that before the battle of
Badr, the Messenger of Allah said,
I have come to know that some people from Bani Hashim and others were forced to
accompany the pagans, although they had no desire to fight us. Therefore, whoever
meets any of them (Bani Hashim), do not kill him. Whoever meets Abu Al-Bukhtari ibn
Hisham, should not kill him. Whoever meets Al-Àbbas bin Àbdul-Muttalib, let him not
kill him, for he was forced to come (with the pagan army). Abu Hudhayfah bin Ùtbah
said, "Shall we kill our fathers, children, brothers and tribesmen (from Quraysh), and
leave Al-Àbbas By Allah! If I meet him, I will kill him with the sword.'' When this reached
the Messenger of Allah, he said to Ùmar bin Al-Khattab,
O Abu Hafs!7 and Ùmar said, "By Allah that was the first time that the Messenger of
Allah called me Abu Hafs.
Will the face of the Messenger of Allahs's uncle be struck with the sword. Ùmar said,
"Oh Allah's Messenger! Give me permission to cut off his neck (meaning Abu Hudhayfah)
7
Ùmar (radhiallahu ànhu) had his first child as a daughter umm al-Mumineen Hafsa radhiallahu
ànha and may allah curse those who curse her . But in the arab custom the kunya is given by the
first male childs name and since Hafsah was a female noun they made it Abu Hafs customarily.

for he has fallen into hypocrisy, by Allah!'' Ever since that happened, Abu Hudhayfah
used to say, "By Allah! I do not feel safe from this statement coming back to haunt me,
and I will continue to fear its repercussions, unless Allah, the Exalted, forgives me for it
through martyrdom.'' Abu Hudhayfah was martyred during the battle of Al-Yamamah,
may Allah be pleased with him.
[Ref: This narration was recorded by Ibn Ishaq via his sanad to Ibn Àbbas in his Seerah
(2/220); also Ibn Hisham (1/629); Tabaqat ibn Sa`d (4/10)and Mustadrak àla saheehayn of
hakim clarifies the names of the majaheel (3/247) from Àbbas ibn ma`bad from his father
from ibn Àbbas with an okay sanad. More such narrations on the prophet sparing banu
hashim and some others who being Muslims still fought against them can be seen in this
short treatise titled by Ustadh Ameen ibn Àbdallah as-
saqawi (born 1384 A.H). 8]
Sahl ibn Bayda (radhiallahu ànhu) was from Makkah and had hid his Islam. Then he went
out with the mushrikeen in the battle Badr and he was then caught and imprisoned so the
Prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) said:
No one will be spared today except by a ransom or by cutting his head off.

: , ,
:

. :

So ibn Masòod radhiallahu ànhu said: Oh Rasool Allah except Sahl ibn Baydah for I have
heard him discuss (praise) Islam (i.e. he is likely to be a Muslim) so the Messenger of
Allah (sallalahuàlayhi wa sallam) after a long pause agreed saying Except Sahl ibn
Baydah 9
8
Narrations such as the one recorded by Imam Ahmad saying
" :[ Ref: 2/97; no.676. Isnad saheeh]
: , , ,
9
36030 , ,

, ,
, :
:

: ,

:

:
,

,: , :

: , : , : , ,

,

:

,


[Ref: Musnad Ahmad (3632; 3633; 3634)]
The khawarij and takfeeriyoon do not leave any opportunity to flaunt their ignorance in
weakening any narration that opposes their cultish political motives or actions of their
contemporaries or predecessor. Thus it is important that this hadeeth be delved into more
detail below. Only brief outlines will be given, the remaining is upon the student himself to
research and trace.
Imam Ahmad brought this narration in his Musnad (3632; 3633; 3634) and so did Imam
tirmidhi grading it hasan (1714; 3084) and Hakim also authenticated this (3/21-22); and
this is from the hadeeth of Abu Ùbaydah Àmmar ibn Àbdullah ibn Masòod from his his
father and he did not hear from his father (r.a) and some muhadditheen have said except
some narrations. But whatever the case, he was still well versed and aware regarding the
narrations of his father and due to this the muhaddithoon have tend to accept his
narration from his father until he narrates a munkar tradition.
This is also what ibn Rajab mentioned in his sharh ìlal of tirmidhi (1/298), quoting from the
two giants of ìlal: Àli ibnul Madeeni and Imam Ya`qoob ibn shaybah. And this seems likely
to be the reason for Imam tirmidhis authentication (tahseen).
Shaykh Àbdullah ibn Àbdul raheem al-Bukhaari (wafaqhullah) produced a book on this
topic regarding the hearing and narration of Abi Ubaydah ibn Àbdullah ibn masòod from
his father for his magistrate exam research in Umm al-Qura university in 1419 Hijri titling it
10

In this the shaykh has brought many statements of many scholars of the salaf regarding the
acceptance of the hadeeth of abu ubaydah from his father. The acceptance was not on it
{ : ,

{ } : }
{ :
}

{ :

:

}

: ,

,

{
, :

}
10
You can download it online: http://ia601407.us.archive.org/22/items/OBIDA/OBIDA.pdf
or more books via torrent from: https://archive.org/details/Hadeeth-Researches-3
or: http://www.book.alashraf.ws/file.php?id=3217

being muttasil but because abu Ùbaydah was the most knowledgable among people
regarding his fathers narration and also that he did not narrate any Munkar narration
from his father.
Among those scholars which Shaykh Àbdullah al-Bukhari mentioned are

- Ali ibn madeeni
- Ya`qoob Ibn Shaybah
- Tahawi
- Hakim
- Ibn abil Birr
- Ibn Àrabi
- Ibn Rajab and more
See: page 105-108
Shaykh authenticated this hadeeth based on its sanad and shawahid (page 266 to 270) and
further said in page 407:
:

. :
. (.
I did not find among his narrations, a narration which is munkar and can be attributed to
abu Ùbaydah. And when found then it was not (due to) Abu Ùbaydah but narrators
below him. And the statement of Imam Ya`qoob which avowals his precision or
observation skills is when he (rahimahullah) said: Munkar traditions do not come from him
(Abu Ùbaydah àn abihi)
Some have casted objections on how, without the chain being connected, it is accepted?
Dr Hatim al-Àwni answers this saying:

To accept the chain despite it lacking ittisal is not shadh or odd in the rules of ilmul-
hadeeth. The specialists know that there are many examples in this such as:
- The narration of Ibrahim an-Nakhai` from Ibn Masòod

- The narration of Àli ibn abi Talha from ibn Àbbas
- The narration of Saèed ibn Mussayab from ibn Khattab (r.a) and many others
These chains above are excluded from the hukm of being inqita which otherwise would
have been weak due to many reasons as explained by muhadditheen. These asaneed show
that there is not one stagnant rule near muhadditheen and exceptions are always there.
And now we have people in this era criticising these rules laid down by muhadditheen
without any shame.
Now that it is shown that this riwayat is accepted, another proof that this narration has
been used by the scholars the fuqaha and muffasiroon since time and age to deduce
important rulings shows the acceptance of this hadeeth near them as well. The fuqaha
have deduced some important principles from this incident of sahl ibn baydah radhiallahu
ànhu who was a Muslim but still fought against not someone ordinary but the Messenger
of Allah sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam.
The fuqaha have said:

: . ...
Whoever is a prisoner of war from among the prisoners and he claims that he is a
Muslim then his speech is not accepted except via a proof because he has made a claim
that opposes what is seen as apparent11. Related to him is the removal/uncertainty of
truth which in turn is related to his neck but if one (among the Muslims) testifies for him
then his path is left (i.e. he is not harmed). Imam shafèe said the testimony will be
accepted from two upright witnesses
[Ref: al-Muharrar of Majd ud-deen (2/320); Al-Mughni of Shaykh ul-Islam ibn Qudamah
(13/52); Nuqat wal-fawaid as-sunniyah àla Mushkil al-Muharrar of Abu al-Barkat Majd-
11
Meaning he claims he is a Muslim, yet the apparent is that he was caught from the ranks of the
enemies fighting against Muslims

ud-deen ibn Taymiyyah (D. 653 A.H) by shamsuddin ibn Muflih (2/320-321); Sharh al-
Kabeer of Shams ud-deen ibn qudamah (10/79-80) Imam bahutis Kashhaf ul-qina` (3/52)]
Imam Abu al-Barkat Majd-ud-deen ibn Taymiyyah (D. 653 A.H)12 rahimahullah in his book
Muntaqi ul-Akhbaar, titled a chapter based on the above hadeeth of sahl ibn baydah
radhiallahu ànhu that said,
Baab: al-aseeru yaddaìl-Islaama Qabla al-Asri wa lahu shaahid
Chapter: The prisoner claims to have Islam before being a prisoner and has a witness (to
support his claim)
And Imam majd ud-deen brought the hadeeth of sahl ibn baydah radhiallahu ànhu under
this.
The Hanbali Imam rahimahullah also brought this hadeeth in his fiqhi based book
Muharrar saying that this is the condition in which the testimony of one witness will be
accepted along with an oath [ ] .
Imam ibn Muflih (D. 763 A.H) explained this statement further deducing more proofs from
this hadeeth and imam majd ud-deens claim in his work
[Ref: nuqat àla muharrar, as has preceded above]
Imam shawkani rahimahullah has explained this hadeeth saying,
12
Imam Abu al-Barkat Majd-ud-deen ibn Taymiyyah (d.653 A.H./1255 C.E.) was a reputed teacher of
the Hanbaleete school and his "Muntaqa al-Akhbaar (selections of prophetic sayings) which
classifies such Ahaadeeth upon which Islaamic legislation is based, is even today regarded as a very
valuable work. Likewise, the scholarly achievements of Ibn Taymiyyah's father, Shihaabuddeen
'Abdul-Haleem Ibn Taymiyyah (d.682 A.H./1284 C.E.) were wide spread.

And the hadeeth proves the case of the author (muntaqa) in what he has titled the
chapter showing that it is permissible for a Muslim POW to be released without fidya
(compensation) if he claims to have been a Muslim prior to being captured and someone
testifies to this in his favour. And likewise is the case (i.e. he will be released)even if he
himself doesnt claim that he was a Muslim prior to being POW and someone testifies
saying he was as is the case in the hadeeth brought under this chapter (i.e. the hadeeth
of sahl ibn baydah). Because sahl ibn baydah (r.a) did not himself confess he was a
Muslim prior to the war but Ibn Masòod later on testified for him, rather in this case
there is nothing except the testimony of ibn masòod regarding him (sahl) being a
Muslim prior to being a POW.
[Ref: nayl ul-Awtar (14/267-268) tahkeeq by Muhammad Subhay hallaq]
Notice how Imam shawkani and even other aimmah e karaam above have not claimed that
a Muslims mere alliance with the kuffar makes him a kafir and thus he cannot be released
or let go. Rather he becomes an apostate and now has to be killed. This was never said by
the scholars. On the contrary as can be seen above they even deem it permissible to release
a Muslim POW who allied and fought alongside the kuffar against Muslims. Sure this can
be a grievous sin and needs some form of kaffarah however the main issue is this was not a
condition to make takfeer as the khawarij do today and this will be clearer as we proceed
ahead.
The Khawarij and Neo khawarij in their zeal to dismiss and belittle the aslaaf and their
fahm and their hallucination of desperately trying to prove their 21st century or later day
fahm to be superior to that of the mutaqaddimeen bring forth some other objections to
the hadeeth of sahl in baydah radhiallahu ànhu. Their objection to its sanad was answered
above but their objections on its pretext and context will be answered below.

Objection #1: Sahl ibn Baydah was coerced and thus takfeer was
excused:
They use the following statement of Ibn Sa`d to oppose fahm e salaf and install their
personal interpretation claiming sahl ibn baydah came out to fight against Muslims under
coercion only and thus his takfeer may be excused.

.
Sahl ibn Baydah accepted Islam in Makkah and hid his Islam and Quraish took him out
with them on the day of badr. He was present with the Mushrikeen on badr and was
taken as captive so Àbdullah ibn Masòod (radhiallahu ànhu) testified to seeing Sahl ibn
Baydah praying in Makkah so he was set free
[Ref: Tabaqat al-Kubra (4/199)]
This is actually not a reliable source to clinge on for Imam ibn sa`d (rahimahullah) died in
230 A.H and there is a huge gap between him and Ibn Masòod radhiallahu ànhu.
Likewise is the case with his ustadh imam al-Waqidi (D. 207 A.H) between whom and ibn
masòod is a gap of one or two generations.
Nevertheless, assuming this to be apt the response to such a weak istedlal from this
statement of Ibn Sa`d (rahimahullah) is as simple as stating that there is no mention in this
narration of Sahl ibn Baydah being coerced. More so, as we have seen above, Sahl (r.a)
himself also did not confess he was a Muslim nor did he plea to save his life because he is a
Muslim. Rather as the scholars said ibn masòod voluntarily intervened and saved sahl (r.a)
testifying for him.
Had he been coerced the way khawarij claim as such, why would he not say what Al-Àbbas
(r.a) said to the prophet that he was a Muslim? Why would he not say it on his own that he
was coerced facing a death and life issue?
All that can be seen in this narration is {{ fa-akhrajathu qurayshun | quraish took him
along with them }} and this is no proof for coercion.
This is like saying My father took me out with him but does not signify coercion.

They use another report to show he was coerced and this is the one that says:
Sahl ibn Baydah accepted Islam in Makkah before Hijrah and disliked (or hated) going
out with the Mushrikeen on the day of Badr and then he was taken captive among the
captives of Mushrikeen. So Àbdullah ibn masòod radhiallahu ànhu testified that he
(sahl) prayed in Makkah So the messenger of Allah sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam said: No
one will be removed (or set free) from the prisoners without a fidya except sahl ibn
baydah FOR HE IS A MUSLIM.
[Ref: ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri (1/1/523)]
Assuming for the sake of argument that this is an authentic report, this does not yet prove
sahl (r.a) was coerced the way coercion actually means. Such as in the case of Àmmar ibn
Yasir.
The khawarij mix up the two terms coercion and dislike even when they are miles apart
and the latter is a cause that at times is inclusive in the former. coercion in simple terms
means to force someone either physically or via violence or oppression which includes
threatening schemes such as blackmailing him about his wife and children, etc. This is what
coercion in general is.
As for fear the fear of humiliation; the fear of not having ones debt paid off; the fear of
inviting repercussions do not necessarily equate with coercion. 13
In this report all we see is sahl r.a hated or disliked going out with them, yet he did. No
proof of their coercing him. It could be peer pressure as back then, such calls for a tribe to
battle was something very serious and deserters would be humiliated for the rest of their
lives, isolated from glory and society so on and so forth, or it could be many other reasons
but from this particular narration, the proof of actual coercion does not exist.

13
:
.

( )

Many sahaaba including ibn masòod radhiallahu ànhu saw the quraish harming the
prophet by throwing intestines of camel on him during sujood yet they did not help them
not out of coercion but fear. Fear is thus NOT EQUAL to coercion. No one forced ibn
masòod to not go help the prophet. No one stopped Fatima and abu bakr radhiallahu
ànhum either yet abu bakr went ahead to help the prophet and was beaten badly. So no
one coerced abu bakr to not help the prophet just like ibn masòod but fear is what
stopped many of them or the pressure that they werent in the position to help.
More so in the same narration the prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam testifies to sahl r.a
being a Muslim despite allying with the Kuffar. Coercion or fear whatever the cause, he
allied with the mushrikeen against Muslims and went into battle. Yet the prophet did not
make his takfeer. But the khawarij today rush to do so without even realizing that the
pressure of the entire western peninsula of earth exerting upon and against their enemy is
massive.
The well-known Shaykh of Ahnaaf Abu Bakr al-Jassas14 (D. 370 A.H) in his famous tafseer
under the beginning of surah muntahina discussing Hatib (radhiallahu ànhu) said:
In this verse is a proof that being afraid regarding ones wealth and family is not a valid
reason to exhibit Kufr. And this type of fear is not on the same level of fear that is
anticipated from a person. Because Allah subhanahu wa ta`la has forbidden Muslims
from indulging in what Hatib (r.a) indulged in despite the fact that he was scared for his
family and property.15
14
His usool al-fiqh work titled al-Fusool fi Usool is quite famous: https://archive.org/details/FSooL
15
Allah permitted Muslims or in other words forgave Muslims from exhibiting kufr when actually
forced at the moment in the verse Anyone who after accepting faith in Allah utters unbelief except
under compulsion his heart remaining firm in faith.. [Quran Surah An-Nahal, verse 106]. But as for
the situation when you arent coerced as of now but rather out of mere fear take precautionary
measures of exhibiting kufr or sin, then this is not allowed even if Allah forgives the sin yet in àsl
as per the law it is not allowed.
This however may vary from case to case but Imam abu bakr al-Jassas rahimahullah wa ghafaralahu
is trying to make a very subtle point here which the readers should think and re-read to
comprehend that doing something when one is being coerced is very different from doing or
exhibiting kufr 5 years or 50 days prior to the event in the mere fear of assumption or simply due to
fear. The Muffasirron have also explained that only when one is forced, meaning if the forcing or

: . :

And this is the evidence exhibiting (deceiving) Kufr based on the fear of losing ones
family and wealth is not permissible. ..until he (Abu Bakr al-Jassas) said further:
Because Allah has obligated Hijrah upon the Muslims and if he abstains from hijirah due
to his wealth and family than he will not fall under one who is ma`zoor (or coerced or
helpless).
Allah says Say, *O Muhammad+, "If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives,
your relatives, wealth which you have obtained, commerce wherein you fear decline,
and dwellings with which you are pleased are more beloved to you than Allah and His
Messenger and jihad in His cause, then wait until Allah executes His command. And Allah
does not guide the defiantly disobedient people." [Quran surah tawbah verse 24]
And Allah said: Indeed, those whom the angels take *in death+ while wronging
themselves - [the angels] will say, "In what [condition] were you?" They will say, "We
were oppressed in the land." The angels will say, "Was not the earth of Allah spacious
[enough] for you to emigrate therein?" For those, their refuge is Hell - and evil it is as a
destination. [Quran surah Nisa verse 97]
[Ref: Ahkaam al-Quran 3/436]
Imam Ìmaadud-deen alkiya al-Harrasi as-shafèe16 (D. 504 A.H) said on the incident on
Hatib (r.a)
In this (incident) is a proof that the fear of calamities befalling Family and wealth does
not permit taqiyah (i.e. falsely exhibiting kufr or alliance with the Kufr) and the excuse
which Hatib ibn abi balta radhiallahu ànhu expressed has no effect on this. [Ref: Ahkam
al-Quran of Kiya al-Harrasi 4/409 shamela; Also see Tafseer at-tabari 28 ]
coercion is happening or in action then it is permissible to exhibit kufr or denounce Islam provided
your heart is full of emaan [Ref: | Tafseer Baydhawi (1/453);
| Muàlim al-Tanzeel (2/214) of Abu Hussain
al-Baghawi; even Imam fakhrud-deen ar-razi said the same in Tafseer razi 5/564]
16


Imam Suyuti (D. 911 A.H) has favoured this interpretation and said in al-Ikleel17 under the
verse { { : - of not taking allahs and Muslims

enemies as their allies
This verse was revealed in regards to the incident of Hatib (r.a) when he did (leak out the
Muslims secrets) out of fear of calamity befalling his wealth and family and from this we
deduce that the mere fear of calamity befalling ones family or wealth does not permit
taqiyyah (deception)
[Ref: al-Ikleel 1/260 Shamela or see its surah 60, verse 1]
Imam ibn Abi Zaid (d. 386 A.H) rahimahullah quoted Imam ibn Habeeb rahimahullah from
his book saying:
. :

.
Verily the concession (given under coercion) is in the (deceiving) speech provided that
the heart is firm on Emaan. So if he is coerced into doing actions such as prostrating to
other than Allah or praying towards other than the qiblah or drinking wine or eating pork
or indulge In zinah or kill a Muslim or even beat him or confiscate his property then he
has no concession to do these things even if he fears death.
: .
Ibn Àbbas (r.a) said: deception (under coercion) is by speech and not with ones actions
or hands
: .
17
: - I would recommend the students and readers to go through this work
st
especially surah tawbah for it is amazing and very classical free from 21 century modernist
polemics and false taweelat. Best part is, it is very brief and upto the point and does not delve into
lengthy discussions that would take a lot of time.

Muhammad ibn Sahnoon (rahimahullah) said: If he is made to prostrate to an idol and if
the idol is aligned with (or in the direction) of the qiblah then he prostrates with the
intention of (prostrating towards) the qiblah. Imam ibn abi zaid said: and this is a good
statement
TN: As has preceded, doing sajdah to other than the direction of qiblah was not allowed by
the scholars and the above fatwa also agrees to the same wherein the only exception of
prostrating under coercion is allowed by one group of scholars is when it is in the direction
of the qiblah so your hearts intention is to face the qiblah even though your apparent
action seemingly shows as if you are prostrating towards the idol which is placed in the
direction of the qiblah.
: . :

Ibn Sahnoon in his book brings al-Awzaè who said: I deem it permissible to deceive via
speech under coercion but it is not right to apply this concession on actions. So if he is
coerced into that such as prostrating to something filthy (such as idol) or towards a cross
or to eat pork or drinking wine then he should not partake in this and rather prefer
being killed and Qatadah (rahimahullah) said this (as well).
. : . :
.
Hasan and Makhool rahimahumallah said that it is makrooh to use this concession in
statement and actions both because this is considered as an ease/diminishing in emaan
: . :
: : .
.
Al-Awzaèe (rahimahullah) said: regarding a captive whose captor forces him to drink
wine so he should not drink and rather be killed. Sahnoon says : But if he fears death or
fears having his limbs or body parts being ripped then he can drink. It was said to him
what is best among these two (fatawa)? He (rahimahullah ) replied: If he fears death
or fears being beaten to death then he can drink otherwise no (and he is to resist as
much as he can). But later he retracted from his statement later on and said what Imam
al-Awzaèe said .

. .
and if he (Muslim captive) were commanded (by the tyrant non muslim ruler) to kill
another Muslim captive then he should not do this even if he feared death. . And if he
kills another Muslim captive then he too shall be killed when found (by the Muslim
authorities)

[Ref: - 3/312-314]
So as per the definition of many scholars Sahl r.a and many others were not coerced to the
extent that it be excused for him to kill other Muslims alying with the Kuffar, and thus
what Sahl (r.a) did even if it were to be sinful was definitely not Kufr al-Akbar .

Objection #2: Sahl ibn Baydah fought against the Messenger of
Allah thereby agreeing to killing him and this is known to be
Kufr bil-Ijma`
Another objection the khawarij bring is that the one who aims to kill the Messenger of
Allah sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam is a kafir and has committed Kufr therefore sahl ibn
Baydah radhiallahu ànhu committed Kufr by alleging with the Kuffar.
Yes intending to kill the Messenger of Allah knowing he is a Messenger is Kufr. However
with the case of sahl r.a this isn't the issue. Our response:
First of All the khawarij have opposed the prophets own statement when he said Sahl ibn
Baydah is a Muslim.
Secondly they have opposed ibn masòods testimony too.
This is not at all surprising because the khawarij are champions of self-interpreting
narrations and denying or refuting the fahm of salaf and even the dhaahir of the riwayat if
it suits their agenda. Like dhul khuwaisra, we have seen modern day khawarij saying they
would even Kill Muhammad (maàdh-Allah) if he were to commit Kufr. Such a statement
coming from the mouths of these present day khawarij is no different that their forefather
dhul khuwaisras statement against the prophet asking him to be just and fear Allah! May
Allah curse these filth and break their backs
Thirdly, the notion of *assuming* that a man participating in a battle automatically means
that he is willing or wanting to kill say such and such a person in the battle is something
only people lacking intellect and wisdom would do.
Just because sahl ibn baydah (r.a) and banu hashim participated in the battle against the
Messenger of Allah does not give the khawarij the right to *assume* they *agreed/willed*
to kill the prophet. It is many times a case that a man participates in a battle yet hates or
dislikes attacking his cousin, or his friend, or even a business partner. Then what about
these jaleel o qadar sahaaba?

An example that would suffice against this self-interpretation of the dogs of hell fire is the
incident of the one who would have been the khalifa of Muslims after Ùmar (r.a) 18had he
been alive the ameen (trustworthy) of this ummah - Abu Ubaidah al-Jarrah radhiallahu
ànhu who during the battle of Badr hated to kill his father and kept moving away and
avoiding a collision.
This is a well-known occurance19 and proves that many a times a man may participate in
the battle agreeing to its goals or to express loyalty however it is not right to assume that
he wants to kill such and such unless there is an explicit proof from himself.
18
As Umar (r.a) wanted to make Abu Ubaidah his successor he didn't want him to remain there in
the epidemic region. Umar dispatched a messenger to Abu Ubaidah with a letter saying:
I am in urgent need of you. If my letter reaches you at night I strongly urge you to leave before
dawn. If this letter reaches you during the day, I strongly urge you to leave before evening and
hasten to me.
When Abu Ubaydah received Umar's letter, he said, '"I know why Umar needs me. He wants to
secure the survival of someone who, however, is not eternal." So he wrote to Umar:
I know that you need me. But I am in an army of Muslims and I have no desire to save myself from
what is afflicting them. I do not want to separate from them until God wills. So, when this letter
reaches you, release me from your command and permit me to stay on
19
- :
:)27/9( .
262/7 ) ( :
:
: :
.. .
227/7( ) :
, , .
286/5( ) :
" ...
" :
.. : .
202/4( ) :
:
: . .

Imam Àbdullah ibn Shu`zab who was among the pious atba tabaèen (D. 157 A.H)
rahimahullah said:
The father of Abu Ubaidah radhiallahu ànhu kept confronting his son Abu Ubaidah on
the day of Badr but Abu Ubaidah kept avoiding (fighting) him yet he (his father) kept
confronting so Abu Ubaidah then aimed and killed his father so the verse was revealed
wherein Allah (praising him) said:
You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for
those who oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons
or their brothers or their kindred. Those - He has decreed within their hearts faith and
supported them with spirit from Him. And We will admit them to gardens beneath which
rivers flow, wherein they abide eternally. Allah is pleased with them, and they are
pleased with Him - those are the party of Allah. Unquestionably, the party of Allah - they
are the successful. [Quran surah mujadila verse 22]
[Ref: Imam tabrani recorded this in his Mu`jam al-Kabeer (No. 360); Hakim in his
Mustadrak (no. 5233); Bayhaqi in sunan al-Kubra (9/27)]
Imam Bayhaqi rahimahullah titled a chapter on this event calling it
Chapter of a Muslim avoiding killing his father in a battle and if he happens to kill then
there is no issue in it.
[Ref: Sunan al-Kubra

http://library.Islamweb.net/newlibrary/display_book.php?idfrom=17277&idto=17279&bk_
no=71&ID=3718]
Whoever reads the seerah of Àbbas radhiallahu ànhu and his love for his nephew
sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam would rather silence himself forever than endure the lifetime
embarrassment that will be thrown upon him for accusing or claiming that Àbbas (r.a)
willed to kill his own beloved nephew in Badr.

Ibn Àbbas (radhiallahu ànhu) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu àlayhi wa
sallam) said:
I have come to know that some people from Bani Hashim and others were forced to
accompany the pagans, although they had no desire to fight us. Therefore, whoever
meets any of them (Bani Hashim), do not kill him. Whoever meets Abu Al-Bukhtari ibn
Hisham, should not kill him. Whoever meets Al-Àbbas bin Àbdul-Muttalib, let him not
kill him, for he was forced to come (with the pagan army). Abu Hudhayfah bin Ùtbah
said, "Shall we kill our fathers, children, brothers and tribesmen (from Quraysh), and
leave Al-Àbbas By Allah! If I meet him, I will kill him with the sword.'' When this reached
the Messenger of Allah, he said to Ùmar bin Al-Khattab,
Oh Abu Hafs! and Ùmar said, "By Allah that was the first time that the Messenger of
Allah called me Abu Hafs.''
Will the face of the Messenger of Allahs's uncle be struck with the sword?!. Ùmar said,
"Oh Allah's Messenger! Give me permission to cut off his neck (meaning Abu Hudhayfah)
for he has fallen into hypocrisy, by Allah!'' Ever since that happened, Abu Hudhayfah
used to say, "By Allah! I do not feel safe from this statement coming back to haunt me,
and I will continue to fear its repercussions, unless Allah, the Exalted, forgives me for it
through martyrdom.'' Abu Hudhayfah was martyred during the battle of Al-Yamamah,
may Allah be pleased with him.
[Ref: This narration was recorded by Ibn Ishaq via his sanad to Ibn Àbbas in his Seerah
(2/220); also Ibn Hisham (1/629); Tabaqat ibn Sa`d (4/10)and Mustadrak àla saheehayn of
hakim clarifies the names of the majaheel (3/247 no. 5058) from Àbbas ibn ma`bad from
his father from ibn Àbbas with an okay sanad. More such narrations on the prophet
sparing banu hashim and some others who being Muslims still fought against them can be
seen in this short treatise titled by Ustadh Ameen ibn
Àbdallah as-saqawi (born 1384 A.H).]

The sanad for this chain mentioning via Hakim is muttasil and acceptable Àbdullah ibn
Ma`bad is thiqah and his simah from his grandfather is also well known. Also see Tabaqat
ibn sa`d (4/10)20
20
One of the brothers may allah bless him from Kuwait asked for certain references for the
tawtheeq of the rijal on my facebook post and I will share what I shared there here quickly so
students having doubts about this narration can trace the source and be satisfied biidhnillah
The doubt was:
With regards to this one, then one Isnad is as follows:

:
So there is Jahalah. Also, see the following link, where Al-Dhahabi rahimahu Allah weakens the Isnad
of Al-Hakim due to a narrator being Majhul (and note the title of the article):
http://ar.Islamway.net/article/31573/-%D9%85%D8%A7-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%B9-
%D9%88%D9%84%D9%85-%D9%8A%D8%AB%D8%A8%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-
%D8%BA%D8%B2%D9%88%D8%A9-%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%B1
Reply:
Mizzi said:

: .
so ikrimah and his brother have both met ibn àbbas

:

And if you are looking for the tawtheeq of àbbas ibn àbdullah ibn ma`bad then:
ibn hibban

bukhari in tareekh

tahdheeb of ibn hajar

<<
sometimes he narrates from his brother ibrahim from ibn Àbbas as abu dawood brings
and shaykh al-Albani authenticates Àbbas ibn Àbdullah in his saheeh abu dawood in another chain
saying

From this report the prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam proved that banu hashim were
coerced21 into coming out. Despite this he caught them as captive and didnt release them
until the fidya was paid nor did he accept their Islam because there was no proof. Unlike
the case of a Muslim POW whose Islam prior to his capture is proven then he was set free
without any qisas. So coercion or no coercion, a Muslim POW allying with the Kuffar for
wordily gains or out of fear is not made takfeer of unless it is proven that his allegiance was
for deeni basis.
Another example where a kafir fighting the Muslims may be spared or how people fight in
a battle yet not intend to kill such and such is the incident of Handhala radhiallahu ànhu.
As is established from Urwa ibn Zubair regarding Handhala ibn Abi Àamir al-Ansari
(radhiallahu ànhu) who holds the high status of being the one whom the angels washed
had sought permission from the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) to kill
his father who was a Mushrik and was fighting alongside Quraish against Muslims but
the prophet did not permit him to do so.
[Ref: ibn Abi Àasim recorded this in Ahaad wa-Mathani (no: 1967); Ibn Qani` in Mu`jam as-
sahaaba (1/203) with a hasan sanad except due to the giant, accepted renowned and
championed Imam Urwa ibn Zubair who was a master in the seerah related events and the
imams of the tabaèen of his region so this is Mursal Hasan22]
:- : - : :

.
:
.
) 2/284/58( " "
.
so sh albani considered him to be thiqah thus the chain of ibn ishaq is okay not bad and muttasil
End of reply
21
:
)

: :

488 484 ((
22
Towering giants like Ibn Àbdis salaam; Daqee al-Èid, Sakhawi, Ibn Hajar, even from the
mutaqaddimeen many including yahya ibn maèen, Ahmad and his contemperories used to accept
slightly weak traditions on seerah and maghazi and the numbers of quotes and the number of
Imams holding this view is 500 times more than those few who opposed it. So let not the khawarij
make a big fuss about its chain as the wisdom from the matan is already known via other authentic
routes.

Many scholars did istedlal with this incident and narration that a man may abstain from
killing his father and have some have deemed it makrooh to kill a father even if he were
mushrik even if he were to aid the kuffar in killing against Muslims. And they preferred that
the son left his father (to be killed) by someone else.
And it has also come in Kitaab al-Àsl of Muhammad ibn Hasan ash-shaybani
(rahimahullah) which is regarded among the top books of Ahnaaf. A man once asked to
Imam Muhammad ibn Hasan ash-Shaybani 23
: :
:

Do you hate that a man from Ahl ul-Àdl (Muslims) kill his brother or father who is from
the revolters so Imam muhammad said: Yes, and if someone else kills them then this
(opinion) is what is hold dear. Even if his brother were a mushrik from our (Non Muslim)
enemies (in a battle)? He (rahimahullah) replied: Yes The man asked: Do you hate
that he kill his brother, paternal uncle and maternal uncle even though they be mushrik?
He (rahimahullah) said yes, nothing wrong in that
Further the man asked Imam Muhammad
What is your view regarding a father who is mushrik and muharib and intends to kill his
son, then is it still disliked (or not allowed) for the son to kill his father? He
(rahimahullah) said: yes (still). I said: What if the father does not intend to kill his son
132 - :

:
" :

"
A man once asked Sufyaan bin 'Uyainah about the chain of narration (isnaad) of a hadeeth, so he
said: "What will you do with its chain of narration? As for you, then the wisdom in it (i.e. the
hadeeth) has already been conveyed to you, and (now) the exhortation in it is what is binding on
you. [Ref: iqtida ul ìlm al àmal 132]
23
The Ahl al-hadeeth scholars of the past and many Muhaqqiqeen of today following much of the
manhaj of Ahl al-hadeeth Imams of past hold Imam Muhammad to be dhaèef in hadeeth. Even
though the opposition presents much to counter this. Nevertheless, dhaèef or not in hadeeth
transmission, one thing is sure that Imam Muhammad was well known to be respected and
acknowledged as a towering faqeeh of his region and time. Denying this by the lay and biased
sectarian ahlul hadeeth folks is simply shameful and disappointing.

then do you hate that the son initiates (the chase) to kill his father? He (rahimahullah)
said yes.
[Ref: (page 235); Al-Àsl (7/519:

https://ia801406.us.archive.org/14/items/FP137311/08_137318.pdf). This fatwa is also
attributed to be the view of Imam abu hanifa and imam abu yusuf as well]
The same opinion is also echoed in the major books of Ahnaaf and can be seen in Siyar al-
Kabeer with the sharh of Imam sarkhasi rahimahullah (4/1433) and Mukhtasar at-tahawi
with the sharh of Abu Bakr al-Jassas (7/189-190); al-Mabsoot of sarkhasi (10/133); and all
of the scholars therein have deduced this opinion from the hadeeth of handhala and his
incident with his father.
Imam nawawi rahimahullah also said:
It is hated that an executioner kill his father in had or qisas punishment
[Ref: Rawdah tu-taalibeen (9/155)]
An Amazing article I found while I came across this quote was the statements of Shaykh ul-
Islam ibn taymiyyah on this topic here: http://badralitammi.blogspot.com/2015/07/2.html
wherein he rahimahullah has quoted hanafiyyah, shawafi, malikiyyah, hanabila and more
scholars discussing this same issue which opposes what the modern day khawarij plot and
claim.

Summary of chapter 2.1:
- As per the salaf, in the light of the evidences given above and there are many more
which havent been used in this chapter for the sake of brevity - a Muslim allying with
the Kuffar against Muslims does not necessarily make him a Kafir. Killing him or a spy
does not mean he was killed because of his Kufr. The prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa
sallam has permitted killing many types of people but not due to their kufr such as
killing road side highway robbers as it comes in the verse of Allah, killing the one who
claims a second caliphate thereby disuniting the Muslims already under a khalifa,
killing the one who drinks alcohol persistently and was caught for more than 4 times,
killing the slave who was accused of fornicating with the prophets slave girl, Killing a
Homosexual, Killing a runaway slave; so on and so forth. The prophet commanded
killing them not always due to their actions being Kufr as is well known to anyone with
a sane mind. Rather the mere killing does not prove he was on Kufr but could also be a
punishment for his sin and killing an adulterer for example does not mean she or he
committed Kufr.
- The tafseer and tashreeh of the verse and ahadeeth given by the scholars above also
show that if a Muslim POW proves he was a Muslim prior to being caught then he is
freed i.e. not killed nor was he made takfeer upon. Had he been a kafir or had his
*mere* action of allying against the Muslims been kufr al-Akbar, then he would have
nothing but the sword but the scholars understood it and explained otherwise. Sadly
the modern day self-interpreting khawarij and ilk understand it as per their own whims
and desires.
Because one can ally against the Muslims out of revenge, out of coercion, out of
embarrassment (as the banu hashim did), out of wordily gains (to gain a political
position or to have a debt forgiven), etc. Even though alliances under this have been
termed as haraam and a grave sin, yet as long as the allegiance is not based on him
loving their deen or loving Islam to be demolished and kufr to be spread, as long as he
doesnt feel this way, the mere action of allying with the Kuffar does not constitute
kufr al-akbar; i.e. the Muslim agreeing, praising, or equating or liking the religion of
the Kuffar or hating the religion of Islam or aiding them so as to destroy Islam, then
this is without a doubt Kufr al Akbar but other than this is not.
- Even the mere testification of a Muslim or two Muslims for a POW being a Muslim
prior to being caught can suffice.

- The objection that sahl ibn baydah was coerced has been answered above that
coercion has a particular level. The mere fear or what would happen does not give us
the permit to ally as the salaf explained above.
- The objection that whoever allies with the Kuffar automatically loves to kill the
Muslims or agrees to demolish Islam is also refuted showing the narrations of
handhala, abu ùbaidah and their explanations of how a Muslim can join the army of
the Kuffar or even ally with them yet at the same time not want the destruction of
Muslims or Islam. One may ally to avenge say for example against a tribe or 500
Muslims for whatsoever reasons yet this does not prove that he also loves to destroy
Islam and Muslims everywhere or as a whole.
- None of the scholars of the past made takfeer of a Muslim who allies with the Kuffar
army against Muslims. The only time they did was explained in the 3rd point above and
thus all their mujmal or general statements of alliance being kufr should be
understood in the proper context and we should not resemble the khawarij who have
the habit of taking things out of context to suit their desires. [See Chapter 2.7 for more
quotes proving this]

Chapter 2.2
The Madhab of Imam shafèe and shawafi Ulema

regarding an individual or a group of Muslims
allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)
Imam shafèe has a chapter in his al-Umm discussing the situation where a group of
Muslims take the help of Kuffar against another set of Muslims. Such as the masala of
bughaat [rebels] who with all their might have isolated themselves from the main jamaàh
of the Muslim rulers and their followers based on some false taweelat such as the khawarij
during àlis time.
Imam shafèe rahimahullah said:

:
:

.
( )
:
And if the (Muslim) rebels seek the help of ahl ul-harb (enemies of Islam/Muslims)
against killing the people of àdl (justice i.e. Muslims) then even if the people of justice
have a promise (of treaty or something) with the people of harb yet it will now be
permissible to kill them (because they are aiding the rebels) and capture them. And the
Ahlul Harb having a peace treaty with the rebels would not be of much use and they will
get their share of peace when they abstain from the attack/war. And if the Ahlul Harb
attack the Muslims (ahlul àdl) while having a peace treaty with them, then this attack of
theirs would serve as the cause for the annulment of the treaty.

And it is said that when the rebels seek help from the ahlul dhimmah (people under the
care of Muslims paying jizyah) against killing Muslim then this would not necessarily
constitute them (ahlud dhimma) breaching their promise because the fact of the matter
is that they are still along with a jamaàt of Muslimeen. I am of the view that perhaps
this was due to them being forced or due to them expressing their ignorance so they say:
in our view it is upon us that when a group of Muslims invoke us against another group
of Muslims by saying that they are seeking help against a group whose blood is
permissible to be shed in Islam for example highway thieves . Or if they say: We did not
know that the group they (rebels) asked us to fight against were Muslims or not . So this
would not constitute them breaching or breaking their promise.
However the compensation for whatever damage they have caused to the wealth and
lives of Ahl ul-Àdl will be taken from them because they are not Muslims and for
Muslims Allah has commanded islah between them. We (Muslims) will come to them
and put forth a new condition in front of them stating that if they elevate or increase in
aggression any further then their blood will be permissible to shed. And I (shafèe) ask
tawfeeq from Allah.
And if one of the rebels comes repenting then there will be no qisas from him because he
is (after all) a Muslim whose blood is haram (to shed)
[Ref: al-Umm 4/234]
Imam Muzni rahimahullah further explaining imam shafèes statement echoed the same
stance [Ref: Mukhtasar al-Muzni 365]
Imamul Haramayn, the mutakallmi Al-Juwani rahimahullah famous for his Kalaami aqeedah
and his brilliant, excellent faqahat in ahkaam deductions like ibn daqeeq al-èid.
Once again Imam shafèe and other Aimmah did not make takfeer of the rebels who allied
with the Kuffar against the main body of Muslims. More so they explained that how
Muslim they are to the extent that their blood still is haram if they repent without any
qisas. Had what he committed been Kufr al-Akbar, he wouldnt be enjoying such privileges
by these scholars.

Imamul Haramayn in his master piece an-nihayat al-Matlab fi-dirayatal-madhab
24
(17/147-154) also explained and echoed the same thing which I summarized above that
Imam shafèe did not make takfeer of the rebels for allying with the Kuffar, more so he
even went on in the end to explain how their lives are sacred if they repent because they
still are and remain Muslims.
And if Imam shafèe rahimahullah were to make takfeer of the bughaat (rebels) due to
them allying with the Kuffar against Muslims, then many issues rise up such as
- if the rebels were deemed as apostate by imam shafèe and other aimmah of
Islam then he wouldnt have said ,, when the rebels seek help from the ahlul
dhimmah (people under the care of Muslims paying jizyah) against killing Muslim
then this would not necessarily constitute them (ahlud dhimma) breaching their
promise because the fact of the matter is that they are still along with a jamaàt of
Muslimeen.}}
- The scholars would not have deemed that there is no qisas against the rebels
because had they been among the Kuffar then their blood, property,women folk
would have been halal. But the rebels are not treated this way despite them
allying with the Kuffar against Muslims. This is similar to the era of khawarij during
ali radhiallahu ànhu time. The khawarij made takfeer and thus deemed the
women folk of the Muslims as war booty the way we see today from 2011-2015
and onwards the khawarij of today do the exact same thing time and again may
allah guide them or destroy them and free Muslims and their lands from their fitan
Ameen
24
Ibn Asakir (592 AH): "The book, Al-Madhab al-Kabir, known as Nihayat al-Matlab fi Dirayat al-
Matlab, never was any work of its like written before it in Islamic history."
Taj al-Subki (771 AH): "The work Al-Nihayah in Fiqh, I can state certainly that nothing like it was ever
written in the madhab."
Ibn Hajar al-Haytami (with a taa not thaa) (973 AH), "The saying has become widespread among our
companions (the Shafi'i scholars and the Imams of the Madhab, 'From the time the Imam (al-
Juwayni) authored Nihayat al-Matlab, the work of the scholars (of the madhab) has all revolved
around the words of the Imam."
Despite Imam juwaini rahimahullah being a little into Sufism, yet refuted the false practises of Sufis
many times and despite being into Kalaam, his knowledge and skills in fiqh gave him the title
Imamul-Haramayn.
You can download this here: http://www.ahlalhdeeth.com/vb/showthread.php?t=149872

Imam Ghazali did not make takfeer against the leaders and Muslims who aided the
Christians against the Muslim caliphate:
: : "
:
- -
- -

{
:
} [ .]9:

,
,
(2 )
From the above, we can see how al-Ghazali does not allow the killing of the wounded
Mushrik allying Muslims and those Muslims among them who flee the battle and Imam
ghazali rahimahullah also does not allow to take their properties, although they sought
help of Christians against Muslims.
This fatwa is actually his reply on the question of Imam Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi that he sent
to al-Ghazali. This fatwa can be found in the book of Ibn al-Arabi called "Shawahid al-Jillah
wal-A'yan fi Mashahid al-Islam wal-Buldan". Unfortunately the book is manuscript as far as
I know, but this fatwa was also published in some modern books such as "Dirasat fi Tarikh
al-Maghrib wal-Andalus".

As per the shawafi scholars including their very Imam Muhammad ibn Idrees
rahimahullah the mere alliance or aiding or even calling the non-Muslims to ones aid
against Muslims does not make anyone a kafir in and of itself. Even if those who ally with
the Kuffar kill, attack and harm Muslims; yet this action is not enough to deem it Kufr al-
Akbar.

Chapter 2.3
The Madhab of Imam Malik and the Malikiyyah

allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)25
Muhammad ibn Suhnoon (D. 256 A.H) said: When the Muslimoon capture prisoners and
decide to kill them and then one of them says I am a Muslim (Idha akhazal-
Muslimoona usara fa-araadu qatlahum faqaala ahaduhum: ana Muslim). So if his Islam
existing prior to his capture is proven then he is free. And if he has no other proof except
his mere claim then he is from the war booty.
And if he is questioned about Islam and he knows about it (the way a Muslim would)26
then he is to be considered as a Muslim and not killed and he is among the war booty.
25
The Maliki scholars are considered to be the most harshest of all the 4 madhahib including ahl al-
hadeeth when it comes to kufr and blood issues.
Imam adh-dhahabi thus said
"
"
Imam dhahabi also criticised many maliki judges of his time blasting them for their blind following of
their madhab fatawa on sensitive issues of kufr and blood issues.
And ash-Shawkani said in tarjumah of Burhanud-Din al-Buqa'i in his "al-Badr at-Tali'":
"

."
26
In todays time especially this could get tricky because the Zionists since a very long time have
spent trillions in educating their agents with every small detail of Islam, which even many born and
bred Muslims would not know.

.

:
The (pow) doesnt free himself from slavery merely on him being dressed as the Muslims
except if it is proven that he was a Muslim prior his capture.
Imam Ibn Suhnoon further says If he says I am a Muslim but does not express his Islam
then Islam will be presented to him and if he accepts then he will be made a slave.
And Ibn Suhnoon also said: If he seeks Islam then killing him will not be rushed into and
Islam will be presented to him and if he accepts then it is not permissible to kill him
[Ref: an-nawadir waz-ziyadat of ibn abi zayd 3/71]
The scholars who explained these statements of Imam Muhammad ibn sahnoon (D. 256
a.h) and other maliki ulema said:
Falam yukaffirhu bijarradi muharabati maàl Kuffaril-Muharibeen
So the Imam (sahnoon and other Maliki scholars) did not term him (the Muslim pow) as a
kaafir on the mere reason of him allying with the kuffar (enemies who fought against
Muslims).
Imam Yahya ibn Yayha in Masala of Ibn Qasim said,
I asked regarding a man from the people of Barcelona who is a Muslim from Brashloon
(Modern day city of Barcelona inside Spain) who remained behind even after the
command and way was made clear for him (by the Muslim army to leave the premises)

27
the day Barcelona was conquered (by Muslims) and instead he attacked and scared the
Muslims, killed and took them as captive or even if he did not kill but atleast seized their
wealth, so is his blood, wealth permissible to be taken? Or if he was captured can be be
turned into a slave (as he fought against Muslims allying with the Kuffar). And he
lingered behind so as to seek refuge (i.e. be safe) from Islam and also it is feared he
would kill (Muslims) if he were to succeed?
So the great Maliki Imam Ibn Qasim said:
I see him to be similar to one who is hostile and lives in dar ul-Islam and is among the
Muslimeen because he is upon the religion of Islam and if he were to be captured then
his ruling will be left for the Imam (khalifah or ruler) and he will rule in his regards the
same as he does for one who creates fasad or muharib. As for his wealth then I view it to
be not permissible for anyone to take.
And if what he did was based on him being helpless and was being commanded and had
no way to rescue himself from those who commanded him, fearing for his life he could
not disobey the one who coerced him then I do not consider him to be hostile (muharib)
nor will he be killed when captured or be subjected to other punishments when it
becomes clear that he is scared and is being commanded to do what he did.
[Ref: An-Nawadir waz-ziyadat of Ibn Abi Zayd (3/352); Bayan wat-tahseel of ibn Rushd
(2/41-42); ( 2/129-130)]
:
27
:
.
Utaybah said that Yahya ibn Yahya narrated from ibn qasim regarding the people of Barcelona here `
the enemy was given them a time frame of one year to leave the place but after this some Muslims
were left behind who attacked and threated Muslims and killed (some and) spared some so Ibn
Qasim said: such a Muslim is like Harbi whom if the Imam (khalifa/ruler) catches then he treats him
as a harbi but does not kill him nor punish him if it is proven that he did what he did out of fear and
.)under command (of the enemies

And this stance is the one on which the scholars of Malikiyyah, Shawafi, Hanabila and
other than them (such as ahl al-hadeeth, etc) are agreed upon that the mere basis of him
allying or aiding the Kuffar against Muslims is not from the reasons (athbaat) of it being
kufr (al-akbar) or him being a kaafir as is in accordance to what is apparent from the
incident of sahl ibn baydah (radhiallahu ànhu which we has preceded)
- The maliki ulema did not say that since the Muslim POW aided the Kuffar against
Muslims his Islam is null and void. No they never said this despite being strict
about this issue. Yet they laid down certain conditions and testing mechanism to
verify his claim which shows that near them his Islam if true was intact and
thus they were discussing the ways to verify his claim. Had they considered the act
of mere allegiance with the Kuffar against Muslims to be kufr al-akbar then they
would have no need to delve into verifying his claim of being a Muslim and could
have straight away said it doesnt matter now, youve anyways become an
apostate.

Chapter 2.4
The Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa and the Ahnaaf

Imam Muhammad Hasan as-shaybani (D. 189 A.H) said in Siyar ul-Kabeer28 while discussing
about a Muslim who was fighting or killing along side Muslims and kills a Muslim fighting in
the army of Mushrikeen and said:
And if a Muslim who was fighting among the ranks (i.e. aiding) of mushrikeen were to be
killed by a Muslim (in the opposite Muslim army) then his killer (i.e. the Muslim from
Muslim army) will not inherit the wealth (such as war -armour etc) of the Muslim he
killed
[Ref: Siyar ul-Kabeer with its sharh 1229]
Imam al-Sarkhasi (D. 486 A.H) rahimahullah in his sharh said:
.

29
" .
And based on this even though killing him is permissible however but his property (such
as sword or armour) is not permissible to be taken as it is not from the war booty.
Because it is the property of a Muslim and the property of a Muslim (warrior fighting
alongside the mushrikeen against Muslims) is not halal to be taken as ghaneema just as
in the case of revolters.
[Ref: Sharh Siyar ul-Kabeer of Sarkhasi 2/717-718]
28
The scholars have said that this work is the last work of Imam Shaybani rahimahullah [Ref: See the
muqaddamah of the tahkeeq of sharh Siyar by Imam sarkhasi rahimahullah (1/13-14)]
29
salabu in arabic is a term used to denote war booty which is taken from the one killed

In another instance Imam Muhammad Hasan as-shaybani rahimahullah said:
. -
-

.
And if you were to find a group of Muslims (fighting alongside) in the ranks of
Mushrikeen with weapons and if you dont know if they are coerced into doing this or
not then I love that their killing not be hastened until you ask them if you are able to.
And if you arent able to ask or inquire from them then delay killing them until you see
one of them fight and kill (the Muslims) alongside (the Mushrikeen) then there is no
issue in fighting and killing them
So until their situation is clarified, it is not permissible to fight them and their mere
presence along the ranks of Mushrikeen is not a clarification in itself regarding that. 30
30
Meaning the mere presence of Muslims in the ranks of Mushrikeen is not a proof of the Kufr nor a
proof that they are willingly coming to kill you. Even though other scholars have allowed Killing any
combatant who fights the Muslims, even if he be a Muslim himself, yet they did not ever make his

And if the Muslims in the ranks of Mushrikeen were to have their weapons armed and
ready and the army Muslimeen is less in number and fear that if they abstain from killing
these (Mushrik allying) Muslims then they will kill them (all and loose the war) and if
majority of the Muslimeen (from the Muslim army) are of the view that the opposing
Muslims (in the mushrikeen army) are not coerced then there is no issue in fighting
them.
So their (Mushrik allying Muslim) condition is similar to a person who enters into
someone elses house in the night with his sword and the house owner becomes
suspicious of him (thereby killing him in defence and holds no blame)
And this situation is deduced from the hadeeth of Àli (radhiallahu ànhu) wherein while
fighting ahlul basra he said: Do not initiate the fighting with them (Muslims from other
party) unless they initiate first *La tabdauhum bil-qitaali hatta Yuqaatilukum]
And the purpose of this deduction is because the appearance of the killing notion from
some of them (in the Mushrik army) is (on its face value) similar to the notion of killing
from their entire group (army) and in this event killing them or fighting them will be
permissible. And if a Muslim were to kill a (mushrik allying) Muslim from their party
after it being clear that he was fighting or killing (Muslims from the Muslim army) and
then if the clear proof were to be shown regarding this killed Muslim was forced to come
fight for the mushrikeen yet there will be no diyah nor kaffarah for the Muslim who
killed him.
[Ref: Siyar al-Kabeer 2796-2798]
Imam sarkhasi rahimahullah in his sharh comments on the above saying
This is because this individual is probable (Lianna dhaalika muhtamal); because it is

possible that he may be coerced into coming or that he may not have been coerced into
coming. So avoiding killing them is better until signs of them attacking (or killing Muslims
from the Muslim army) becomes clear and then killing them is permissible. Because their
takfeer or say that he was killed because allying against the Muslims for non deeni issues is Kufr al-
Akbar. For there are 999 reasons why a Muslim may fight another Muslim but as long as it is not for
the basis of deen or against Islam in itself or similar shapes of likewise issues then this isnt kufr al-
akbar near the aslaaf

blood becomes permissible as they are in the ranks of the Mushrikeen, even though they
are Muslimeen (wain kaanu Muslimeen)
[Ref: Sharh Siyar al-Kabeer (4/1445)]
Summary of Chapter 2.4
- The hanafi ulema by large have always clarified in different books that a Muslim
merely his presence in the ranks of Kuffar, no matter how much it boils your blood,
does not give you an excuse to make his takfeer. He does not become a Kafir by
the mere allegiance with the Kuffar against Muslims even if his blood becomes
permissible to shed, even if you would want to crucify him for his atrocities yet
removing him from the pale of Islam was not what the scholars did based on the
mere alliance. They considered him to be a Muslim, his wealth as haraam to be
inherited and likewise his women folk were given indemnity and not treated nor
sold like the other mushrik women slaves.

Chapter 2.5
The Madhab of Imam Ahmad and the Hanabila

Imam ibn Taymiyyah said regarding those Muslims who killed Muslims while allying with
the Tatar
And Similarly Those who fight along with these tatars without compulsion (i.e with their
own free will) are either Fasiq, Innovators or Zindeeq.
[Ref: Majmua al Fatawa Vol 7 Page 522]
Imam Ibn taymiyyah in the next page - also says:
It is possible that a person loves these enemies (of allah) for family reasons or other
personal (wordily) benefits then this would diminish from his emaan but not make him a
kafir.
[Ref: Majmoo` al-fatawa volume 7 page 523]
In the forthcoming topic of the Hukm of Jasoos (spy) Ibn taymiyyah further reiterates this
notion of the hanabila in little more detail.
Imam ibn Taymiyyah one of the foremost authorities in Islam especially the Hanbali
madhab issues a fatwa with regards to the incident of the Mardin31 (a Muslim land with a
Muslim army under the rule of Tatar in 658 A.H) where the Muslim army and Muslim men
of Mardin aided and allied with the Tatar kafir army in plunging and killing the Muslims in
the huge areas of ash-Shaam (currently divided into 4+ nations). The Muslim ameer of that
31
See the image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8d/Mardin_old_town.JPG

city qarsalan accepted the rule of the kafir Mongol Halaku Khan then and he was the
representative of Halaku for that region of Mardin and stayed as such until he died (691
A.H).
And he along with his Muslim army kept fighting alongside Tatar plunging and ransacking
Muslim lands across the years such as in 674 A.H; 679 A.H and 680 A.H
[Ref: Tareekh al-Islam of Imam Dhahabi (14/876 and 15/735); al-Bidaya wan-Nihaya
(17/519); Tareekh ibnul-Furaat (7/185, 313)]
Imam ibn Taymiyah was asked:
[ ] " " 240 :

Regarding the land of Mardeen. Is it a land of war or peace? And is it mandatory for the
Muslim living there to migrate towards Muslim lands or not? And if migration was
obligatory upon him yet he didnt do plus he voluntarily aided the enemies of Islam with
himself and his wealth then will he be sinful in this? And will the one who call him a
Munafiq and criticize (abuse) him be sinful?
Imam rahimahullah replied:
. " " . :
. .
.
All praise is due to Allah, the blood and wealth of Muslims are haraam (to consume)
irrespective of where they are be it in Mardin or other than it. To aid those who are out
of Islam is haraam irrespective of them (Kafir) be from the residents of Mardin or other
than them. And if the one who lives there if he cannot continue to establish (follow) his
religion then migration is mandatory for him and if he can then it is recommended.

; .

To aid the enemies of Muslims by their lives and their wealth is prohibited for them and
it is wajib upon them to refrain from that be it in whatever way possible (for them to
evade helping the Tatar) such as to hide themselves; to hint or in whatever other way
they should do it and if it (aiding the Muslim cause) and if nothing is possible except
migration then it becomes compulsory upon them.
;
] 242 : [.
In general conditions it is not permissible to abuse or criticize them or call them

munafiqeen (hypocrites) because abusing and labelling one a hypocrite is done only
based on the traits which are mentioned in the Quran and sunnah and *some* among
the residents of Mardin and other than them do enter these traits.
; ; " :
32
; ;
.
32
There is a bit of controversy here. The word Yuàmil here in some of the manuscripts of Ibn
taymiyyahs work says Yuqatil (killed). This yuqatil is actually tasheef and incorrect. Details of this
can be searched online as well or on shaykh Àbdul Wahhab ibn Nasir at-turayris website. In short
this is what the scholars when held a meeting/conference said about this tasheef as summarized by
Shaykh ibn Nasir at-turayri:

.
) (
() ..

Such transcribing errors in the manuscript is what caused the some extremist Muslim groups to use
this fatwa out of context against Muslim leaders. When such events took place many times the
scholars held a conference in 2010 including the scholars such as
and they clarified that this part yuqtal/killed is a transcribing error and ibn
taymiyyah did not issue this verdict on the Muslims who aided the tatar. [

... ]
see maktabah dhahiriyyas manuscript which had this error. For a detail English translation of this
problem, please see: http://Muslimmatters.org/2010/06/29/the-mardin-conference-%E2%80%93-
a-detailed-account/

As for the land of Mardin being darul Harb or a land of peace (Islam) then it depends on
two issues. So this land neither comes to the level of being dar ul-Islam where Islamic
commandments are enforced and it has a Muslim army.
Nor is it in the placing of dar al-Harb where its residents (i.e. Muslims who are working
and aiding under Tatar against other Muslims) are (all) Kuffar. Rather there is a third
type in which the city falls which is that a Muslim living there will be treated as he
deserves ()33and one who is removed from the sharìah of Islam will be dealt as he
deserves34
End of fatwa
[Ref: Majmoo` al-Fatawa 28/240-241]
Subhanallah, the questioner also didnt accuse those Muslims of Kufr. Had such a notion
been widespread, especially back then when gheerah and Muslim dominance was
widespread among lay Muslims, the questioner surely would have asked about their kufr
33
See chapter 2.4 above where the Aimmah explain how a Muslim POW is not to be killed or his
property cannot be taken because he still is a Muslim even if he allies with the Kuffar against
Muslims
34
This could be either Non Muslims or could be apostate Muslims who aided tatar not out of
wordily greed but by respecting or believing their form of religion or with the intention of
destroying Islam from Muslim lands and so on.

instead of mere sin. Likewise Shaykh ul-Islam the one who is free from what the Khawarij
use him for also did not even generalize Kufr on the mere basis of allying with the Kuffar
and killing Muslims. Rather he clearly divided them into two group one which remained
Muslims and other which did not.
Neither did he permit calling all of those Muslims as munafiqeen on the apparentness of
them allying with the Kuffar.
Similarly Imam Ibn Jawzi rahimahullah said in his Tafseer
: . : : :
.
The statement of Allah whoever allies with them is of them then in this there are two
understandings: One is that whoever allies with them in their religion then he is from
them in their Kufr but whoever allies with them in dealings (such as military pact,) then
he is from them in opposing the issue (i.e. he is sinful but not Kufr al-Akbar)
[Ref: ]
Summary of Chapter 2.5
The Hanabila scholars like the other scholars adhering to the 3 madhahib including the Ahl
al-hadeeth spread inside the 4 madhahib and the dhaahiri ulema all do not make takfeer of
a Muslim on the *mere* alliance of his with the Kuffar against Muslims in a war no
matter the consequence the war gives out.
The only time his Islam is taken away is when the proof is established in accordance to the
set principles and checklist by the salaf in accordance to the sharìah.

Chapter 2.6
A similar ruling from the Incident of Banu Ùqayl

captive and Hudayfa and his father radhiallahu
ànhum ajmaèen
Incident of Banu Ùqayl captive:
Narrated by Imran bin Husayn The tribe of Thaqif was the ally of Banu Uqayl. Thaqif took
two people from among the companions of Allah's Messenger as prisoners. The
companions of Allah's Messenger took one person of Banu Uqayl as prisoner, and
captured al-Adba' (the she-camel of sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) with him. Allah's
Messenger came to him and he was tied with ropes. He said: O Muhammad. He came up
to him and said: What is the matter with you? Thereupon he (the prisoner) said: Why
have you taken me as prisoner and why have you caught hold of one preceding the
pilgrims (the she-camel as she carried sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam on her back and walked
ahead of the multitude)?
He (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) said: (Yours is a great fault). I (my men) have captured of
you for the crime of your allies, Banu Thaqif.
He (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) then turned away. He again called him and said: Oh
Muhammad, Oh Muhammad, and since Allah's Messenger was very compassionate and
tender-hearted 35, he returned to him, and said: What is the matter with you? He said: I
am a Muslim.
Thereupon he (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) said: Had you said this when you had been
the master of yourself, you would have gained every success. He then turned away. He
(the prisoner) called him again saying Muhammad, Muhammad. He came to him and
said: What is the matter with you? He said: I am hungry, feed me, and I am thirsty, so
provide me with drink.
35
Usually during those days, paying attention to your captive, feeding him and arguing/debating
with him was not the norm. captives were treated the way Muslims are treated today by
Islamaphobes or even worse. Yet the prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam was different from the
pagan norms and he displayed this time and again. To see Islams prisoner rights click: http://the-
finalrevelation.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-rights-of-prisoners-of-wars-in-Islam.html

He (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) said: That is (to satisfy) your want. He was then
ransomed for two people (who had been taken prisoner by Thaqif).
[Ref: Saheeh Muslim #4027]
Imam at-Teebi (D. 734 A.H) rahimahullah said commenting on this hadeeth:
And in this is a proof that when a Kafir is caught as captive and during his captivity he
claims to be Muslim then it is not accepted unless a clear proof is established and if he
accepts Islam after captivity then it is haram to kill him but permissible to enslave him
[Ref: Sharh Teebi àla Mishkat al-Masabih (9/2746 no. 3969)]
Different scholars have commented similarly on this hadeeth. Their summarized

translation of their speech is as follows:
It is well known that only a harbi individual is taken captive. Neither a tax paying
Dhimmi nor a Muwwahid /Muslim is taken captive. So it is clear that the person of Banu
uqayl /Aqeel taken captive was a harbi against Muslims. Despite this, when he claimed
to be Muslim the Messenger of Allah sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam said:
Had you said/shown this when you were a master of yourself (meaning free before
captive) you would have gained every success.
Meaning if despite him being an ally of those who waged war against Muslims, had he
confessed to being a Muslim before he was taken captive he would have been free and
far from takfeer.
[Ref: See the various statements of scholars on this hadeeth such as in al-Umm of ash-
shafèe (4/267-268); al-awsat of Ibn Mundhir (11/220-222); al-Mafham of Abu Àbbas al-
qurtubi (4/609-611) and Sharh nawawi (11/104)]

As seen, the salaf and scholars of this Ummah who have more gheerah for Islam and were
a gazillion times far from being affected with the secular 21st century environment and
ideologies have a different understanding to these situations and alliance against Muslims
than the modern day takfeeri khawarij hell bent on making the lives of Muslims all the
more miserable than what it is.
Incident of Hudhayfa and his father radhiallahu ànhum aiding the mushrikeen indirectly
The scholars who put chapter headings, put this incident in Saheeh Muslim under the
chapter titled Chapter: Upholding Covenants Something which the khawarij love to
break now and then.
It has been reported on the authority of Hudbaifa b. al-Yaman who said:

Nothing prevented me from being present at! he Battle of Badr except this incident. I came
out with my father Husail (to participate in the Battle), but we were caught by the
disbelievers of Quraish. They said: (Do) you intend to go to Muhammad? We said: We do
not intend to go to him, but we wish to go (back) to Medina. So they took from us a
covenant in the name of God that we would turn back to Medina and would not fight on
the side of Muhammad () . So, we came to the Messenger of Allah ( ) and related the
incident to him. He said: Both, of you proceed (to Medina) ; we will fulfil the covenant
made with them and seek God's help against them.
[Ref: Saheeh Muslim 1787]
1. Hudhayfa (r.a) due to pressure or other reasons denied that they were going to aid
the prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam)
2. He (r.a) said he is not going to aid the prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) but he
is going to Madeenah . As per the khawarij, not aiding their illegitimate tyranny or
denying support to them is tantamount to Kufr
3. He (r.a) even promised to not aid the prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) in
fighting against those who harmed him (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) the most in all
possible ways.
4. Finally the prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) did not make takfeer of hudhayfa
and his father, nor did he rebuke him . Nor did he say this is haraam and not

allowed. Rather he said fulfil your promise and we will take care of it. Had a
Muslim done this under the kharji rule even today, hed be chopped to pieces and
thrown into the market making takfeer on him and all his family for not aiding the
khawarij plus more seriously, aiding the kuffar against the muslims by not
strengthening their ranks or not participating in their battles.
Subhanallah, the khawarij today make takfeer of Muslims for millions of false reasons
including the very notion that if a Muslim were to in any way direct or indirect verbally or
physically aid against their group he is a kafir whose blood is halal, wives are halal to
enslave, likewise daughters and his property legal to usurp.
But compare this incident of hudhayfa radhiallahu ànhu with the modern day khawarij
mentality. It is very much self explanatory that back then, the numbers in battle formation
was as important as nuclear weapons today are. Despite this, at such a sensitive and
crucial time hudhayfa (r.a) gave them a promise and more so, informed the prophet
sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam regarding this promise. To which the prophet sallalahu àlayhi
wa sallam in such a harsh and sensitive situation asked them to stick to their word .

Chapter 2.7
Madhab of some other scholars of Sunnah regarding

an individual or a group of Muslims allying with the
Kuffar against another Muslim(s)
As Imam Muhammad Taahir ibn Àshoor (D. 1393 A.H) said:
And the scholars of sunnah are agreed upon that favouring them from being their ally (or
giving support) without being pleased with their Kufr does not necessitate his expulsion
out of Islam but still this is a great deviancy which is of various levels (magnitude)
depending on the level of alliance and the circumstance of Muslims
[Ref: At-tahreer wat-tanweer 3/230. More similar statements will follow from Najdi Ulema]
Imam Taahir ibn Àshoor quoted no less than atleast 15 fatawa from 9 th Hijri Andalusian
scholars36 wherein these group of scholars were asked regarding the military legion
whose Andalusian leader and their knights resorted to seeking the help of the King of
Qashtal37 (a Christian kingdom) after a battle of Lassanah and sought his assistance
against Muslims, all along being by his side and living in the lands of Christians
[something very rare for Muslims to do back then]; So is it permissible for any Muslim to
help them?! Or is it permissible for any residents of a city or people of a fort to take
shelter with them?! So the andalusian scholars answered:
36
Their names are:

37
Kingdom of Castile- The Kingdom of Castile was a large and powerful state on the Iberian
Peninsula during the Middle Ages. Its name comes from the host of castles constructed in the
region. Capitals: Burgos, Toledo
Founded: 1035; Government: Monarchy; Date dissolved: 1230; Historical era: Middle Age

Their reliance upon them and aiding them against Muslims enters them into what Allah
said And if any among you befriends them, then surely, he is one of them. *Quran
Surah Maidah verse 51]; So helping them (in their alliance with the Kuffar) is considered
as rebelling against Allah and his Messenger and this condition will continue until they
keep doing in what they do but if they repent and return from their deviance then it is
mandatory upon Muslms to accept them.
[Ref: Tahreer wat-tanweer 3/23138; Imam Ibn Àshoor quoted this summarizing it from
( 11/148-150)]
Imam ibn Àshoor commented on the above fatwa saying:

.
.
And the deduction in their answer with this ayah is a proof that they interpreted the
meaning he is one of them, to imply that they are deserving of hatred and
chastisement ( and not Kufr/takfeer)39. And this is what the fuqaha enacted upon
and answered that such an alliance is the most severe type *after* the alliance that
38
:

] 232 : [
- - ) ( ) (
.
.

39
Imam Tahir ibn Àshoor rahimahullah explained the verse by saying
: :
: .
And the Muffasiroon have two interpretations or two explanations. One is that the verse implies
complete allegiance/being pleased i.e. being pleased with their (Kufriya) religion and criticise the
religion of Islam and likewise for this Ibn Àttiyyah (rahimahullah) said: Whoever allies with them
with their àqeedah and with their religion then he is from them in Kufr and will remain in fire
(forever) the second interpretation is that they are from them implies a simili to severe
punishment i.e. he is one among them (the kuffar) who will be punished (but not necessarily
become a kafir like them).

constitutes Kufr And further lesser than this is the alliance that occurs in trade of clothes,
business and ilk. Then there is another type of alliance below/lesser than this too but
actually it isnt considered as muwalat but rather mere muàmala (i.e. normal
indulgences)
[Ref: Ibid]
Imam ibn Àttiyah (541 A.H rahimahullah) also said:
:
.
And whoever allies with them in actions of aiding ( - means such as militarily) and
likewise but not (allying) in their Àqeedah and neither is his faith infringed then he falls
under the category of those that are subject to chastisement (in the verse of surah
maidah 51)
End Quote
[Ref: Ibid and a page before it]
Imam Ibn Àshoor makes it more clearer that such a verse or answer by the Andalusian
scholars did not include kufr but rather a great sin that didnt reach kufr.
[Ref: See his tafseer/commentary under the verse Surah Aal Ìmran verse 28- in his Tahreer
wat-tanweer 3/217-220]
More so, the scholars have even discussed the situation when a Muslim allies with a
Harbi kafir by supplying him arms against Muslims and when a Muslim allies with a
dhimmi kafir supplying him arms against Muslims and in both these cases along with the
distinction the scholars have made, they have never made takfeer due to the mere
action of supplying arms against Muslims.
[Ref: See Majmoo` an-Nawawi (9/354 A kharji takfeeri once had the audacity to reject
Imam nawawis fatwa saying he was an Àshari. In reality this takfeeri does not even know
what Asharism is, the different levels found in different scholars, Imam nawawis retraction
from much of it before his death and so on. But when faced with so many proofs from the
salaf against their invented kharji notions they resort to using such lame excuses for

rejecting the proofs from the salaf.) Also see Fathul-Qadeer of Imam ibn Hummam (5/209);
Sharh Kabeer of Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Qudamah (11/170); Ìlam al-Muwwaqqien (3/158)]
Considering how the kharji takfeeriyoon consider any or every act of alliance with the
Kuffar tantamount to Kufr whether it may or may not be an alliance against Muslims, but
the mere notion of Muslim ruler allying or helping economically or even politically the Kafir
ruler is deemed as Kufr al-Akbar or at the very least asghar by these Takfeeriyoon. But
even in this as usual they oppose the fahm of the salaf and for this we will quote what
Imam al-Awzaèe (D. 157 A.H) the Imams of Aimmah40 - spoke about a similar concept.
He rahimahullah said:
:
.
.
And when an oppressive (Kafir) ruler ( )calls on to his Muslim captives to aid and
assist him in fighting against his opponents from his religion and if they do so he will free
them and thus if they (captive Muslims) fight alongside him so as to achieve what he
promised (i.e. setting them free) and not to win him over 41 nor fight with the intention
to venerate his religion then there is no harm in that. And Farwa ibn Mujahid
(rahimahullah) did likewise with his Tabaèen companions when the oppressive roman
ruler asked for his (and his companions) aid in the battle of Burjan and they were
granted victory and the oppressive roman ruler freed them. So the scholars present that
time (in that era) didnt find an issue with such an action
[Ref: An-Nawadir waz-ziyadat (3/313-314 shamela) and even in the pages before and after
this are statements of Imam Malik and others refuting the kharji notions.]
Many Maliki scholars quote imam al-Awzaèes fatwa agreeing to it. The incident of Farwah
ibn Mujahid rahimahullah is recorded by the scholars of warriors of his era Imam ibn
Àsakir (rahimahullah) in his magnificent Tareekh Dimishq.
40
See a short bio of him: http://feqh.al-Islam.com/services.aspx?pageid=306&IndexItemID=11007
41
In this context the term implies trying to win him over so as to be on his good side and
derive benefit from him, in other words there is a difference between aiding them for personal
benefit such as being away from harm and a difference in doing more than what was asked/needed
with the intention of being his faithful comrade/servant.

Farwa ibn Mujahid informed When a tyrant Roman called him and his companions to
fight alongside him against the people of Burjaan promising them that he will free them
if they help him. So we responded (i.e. accepted his offer). So my companions said to
me: How will we fight them without inviting them to Islam first?! So I said: This
tyrant roman will not accept this (condition) from us but I will try to persuade (smartly).
So I said to the tyrant If you were to permit us (Muslims) to establish prayer forming 2
rows and then you tell them (the romans whom he is fighting) that we have some Arabs
(Muslims) so our prayer will testify to what you are telling them.42 So it was accepted
and we prayed in front of them and then fought them and Allah granted us victory
against them and the tyrant then freed us.
[Ref: Tareekh ad-Dimishiq 48/274]
The above incidents and fatwa of al-Awzaì prove the following:
1) The Muslims above aiding the Kafir ruler and helping him win no doubt
strengthens his position, increases his wealth, his influence and standing among
42
Meaning they will praying forming 2 rows of Muslims praying in front of where these roman
disbelievers would gather to fight each other and this will be the invitation towards Islam.

his own people and foreign (such as Muslim) powers and has other physiological
advantages which are very vital.
2) The Tabaèen, their scholars, al-Awzaèe and others did not consider such aiding of
the Kafir as a form of Muwallat or something that even remotely came close to
being Kufr. On the contrary, the Tabaèen were worried about the protocol of first
inviting the non Muslims to Islam before fighting them rather than producing the
thought of how their actions (as per the kharji interpretation) could be kufr.
3) The very fact that imam al-Awzaèe stipulated that the allegiance not be to
venerate the religion of Kufr is a proof in itself that allegiance is based on
intentions and for something to count as Kufr, one should intend it with something
that is Kufr. Unlike the khawarij, Imam al-Awzaèe proved that there is a difference
between the different types of allegiance. Today, youll see the over zealous
takfeeri kids and their kharji ideals make takfeer of any and every Muslim ruler or
govt. the moment they find it helping some non Islamic state/institution. Had they
stuck to viewing it as a major sin or even Kufr al-Asghar for that matter; discussing
and debating them would still be a good optimistic option. But with their
uncontrolled takfeer it simply leaves no room for discussion.

Objection: They were captives and were coerced into aiding the roman ruler so it doesnt
count as Kufr.
Answer: This and similar objections were answered above under chapter 2.1 when some
takfeeri objections on the incident of Sahl ibn Baydah radhiallahu ànhu were answered
showing that there is a certain level of Ikrah (compulsion/coercion) only this level being
passed, it becomes permissible to commit Kufr. The incident above does not exhibit that
level. More so, there wasnt even any such coercion. Rather it was a deal, a bribe in other
words or rather an option given to them in exchange for something they desire. They had
all the right to refuse the Roman King and be martyred by his sword achieving the highest
levels of paradise.
More so, Imam al-Awzaèe rahimahullah while discussing this issue did not even once
remotely mention they were coerced thus it was okay and ended the discussion but he
clearly is discussing how the scholars of their era did not see any wrong in it. And also
went one step ahead to stipulate certain conditions when it would not be okay for them to
aid him.

Summary and Conclusion of Section 2
We have discussed the following subtitles above under section 2.

- Chapter 2.1) Tafseer and the cause of revelation of surah Nisa verse 92
- Objection #1: Sahl ibn Baydah was coerced and thus takfeer was excused:
- Objection #2: Sahl ibn Baydah fought against the Messenger of Allah thereby
agreeing to killing him and this is known to be Kufr bil-Ijma`
- Chapter 2.2) The Madhab of Imam shafèe and shawafi Ulema regarding an
individual or a group of Muslims allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)
- Chapter 2.3) The Madhab of Imam Malik and the Malikiyyah regarding an
- Chapter 2.4) The Madhab of Imam Abu Hanifa and the Ahnaaf regarding an
- Chapter 2.5) The Madhab of Imam Ahmad and the Hanabila regarding an individual
or a group of Muslims allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)
- Chapter 2.6: A similar ruling from the Incident of Banu Ùqayl captive and Hudayfa
and his father radhiallahu ànhum ajmaèen
- Chapter 2.7) Madhab of some other scholars of Sunnah regarding an individual or

a group of Muslims allying with the Kuffar against another Muslim(s)
The scholars of Islam (Sunnism) of all the schools and minhaaj, especially the most superior
of them i.e. the earlier salaf did not understand Islam and its subtleties including the issue
of takfeer, alliance, wala al-bara the way these misguided khawarij and their ilk have today
due to whatsoever reasons. The arguments, quotations and textual proofs shared above
should be more than enough to close this discussion but the khawarij are a quarrelsome
people bringing newly 21st century invented arguments to defend their blood thirsty
imperialistic interpretation of Islam to feed their power hunger. So we will discuss a little

more in the following pages, hammering each nail bit by bit by the will if the one who is
above the seven heavens on his throne distinct from his creation wishes.

Section 3
Understanding of the salaf on a muslims alliance to

the kuffar by spying or providing resources and
support.
Among the greatest of weapons that has helped bring down empires over the past timeline
of Human civilization to even this day of social media warfare and cyber-attack is the
offering of being a spy. Information and discreet undertakings by a spy is one of the most
powerful and successful war-fare tactics so the magnitude of the sin and wrath of Allah
incurred for being a spy against Muslims shudders the very bones inside a man possessing
emaan and belief in being accountable on the day of judgement for every kilobyte of
information supplied to the enemies of Muslims.
As imam ibn rushd rahimahullah said:
{ : ,

- } .
A spy is more harmful to the Muslims than a muharib (war waging kafir); and is
responsible for causing more fasaad (tribulations) on the earth than a muharib and Allah
said regarding a Muharib Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and
His Messenger (Surah Maidah 33)
[Ref: al-Bayan wat-tahseel (2/526 onwards)]
So do not misunderstand the intent of the following quotations as some overzealous are
likely to. The khawarij with their half quoted one sided texts on the internet have forced
many of us to present these clarification to the awaam.
Not to mention, a vast network of Muslims including the liberals, so called seculars,
coerced beings, financially challenged and what have you; are spying and offering help to
the local Islamaphobic forces in every country. And if we were to follow the kharji way

then wed have removed not less than many hundred thousands of Muslim spys out of the
fold of Islam but let us see what the inheritors of the Prophet have to say on this topic.
No doubt those with the intention of destroying Islam and spreading other religions in
Muslim land or those agreeing with other religions or those agreeing with the idealogy
atheism or secularism then these name sake Muslims are apostates by unanimous
consensus. However 80% of the time a Muslim spy does it for money, for safety,
sometimes if he happens to be from a group such as the Sufis on the govt payrole as many
are in our world today; then in his hatred against the so called wahabism he ends up spying
in good conscious thinking he is doing it for Islam or Muslims. But the khawarij in the past
did not differentiate between major and minor sins and the khawari of today do not
differentiate between the different types of spies and alliances.
In this section the following summary will be shown and proved.
- -
The Imams of the 4 madhab Aba Hanifa an Malik and as-shafèe and Ahmad
rahimahumallah did not make Takfeer of a Muslim on the mere basis of him being a spy
[unless he does what he does hating Islam or loving their deen]
And all of them did not unrestrictedly pronounce takfeer or apostacy for a spy and even
those among the scholars who advocated killing the spy did so out of ta`zeer (disciplinary
punishment) and not because they deemed the spy was a Kafir and even among them
were some who observed silence on the killing of a spy such as the great Imam Ahmad
himself.
This e-book has already become quite lengthy than what was intended so henceforth only
a few statements will be translated and quoted on this issue and for those who want to
delve into more details then the following bibliography should suffice for their research:
Hanafi Madhabs view against the Kharji notion of spy: al-Khiraj of Abi Yusuf (189-190);
Siyar al-Kabeer of Shaybani with the sharh of sarkhasi (5/2040-2041); Sharh Mushkil al-
Athar of Tahawi (11/276); Mabsoot of as-sarkhasi (10/86)]

Maliki Madhabs views against the Kharji notion of spy: An-Nawadir waz-ziyadat of Ibn
Abi Zayd (3/352-353); Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhari of Ibn Battal (5/162-165); Ibn Hasan al-
Lakhmis Tabsarah (3/2364 onwards); and one of the main books Muàllim of Al-Maziri
(3/160); al-Ikmal ul-Muàllim of Qadhi Ìyadh (7/537 onwards); al-Bayan wat-tahseel of
Imam ibn Rushd (2/536 onwards); and Jami` al-Ahkam i.e. Tafseer of Abu Àbdullah al-
Qurtubi al-Maliki (18/53); al-Mafham of Abul Àbbas al-Qurtubi (6/443) and Zakheera of
Qarrafi (3/ 400 onwards)
Shafèe Madhabs views against the Kharji notion of spy: See Imam as-shafèes Umm
(4/249); See ibn Mundhirs Awsat (22/285 onwards); the magnificent ma`lim us-sunan of
Imam al-Khattabi (4/4); Muhaddhab of abi ishaaq ash-shirazi (D. 476 A.H) along with its
sharh Takmeetul Majmoo` (19/340 342); And see (12/190) in al-Bayan of Ìmrani (D. 558
A.H); Sharh Nawawi of Saheeh Muslim (16/288 onwards).
Hanbali Madhabs views against the Kharji notion of spy: Al-Furoo` of Imam ibn Muflih
(10/116 onwards); Majmoo` al-fatawa of Imam ibn Taymiyyah (28/345); Zad al-Maàd
(3/113-115); al-Insaaf of Mardaawi with the Hashiya of Miqnah and Sharh Kabeer (26/463
onwards)
Other works of different scholars: See Imam ibn Battals Sharh Bukhari in which he quotes
the statements of Imamul Muffasireen wal-Muaakhireen Muhammad ibn Jareer at-tabari
rahimahullah (5/162 onwards).
None of the above statements in the aforementioned references have the ulema made
takfeer of a Muslim spy allying against the Muslims unless his allegiance is due to
hating/abusing Islam or loving their religion. You may find much of the above in maktabah
shamela itself.
Imam Abu Ja`far at-tahawi al-Hanafi rahimahullah said:
There is no difference of opinion regarding a Muslim spy that his blood is not Halal
(merely because he spied and aided the kuffar against the Muslims)
[Ref: Mukhtasar Ikhtilaaf ul-Ùlema 3/451]

Note: this is context to his takfeer. Here as the scholars have explained that the reason
why Imam tahawi said so is inclusive of the proof that he didnt consider the spy to be
apostate. Obviously if he had, then killing the apostate spy would become wajib as is
known to everyone.
Muhaddith Ibn Hajar asqalani ash-shafì says:
And at-tahawi has narrated an Ijmaa` that the blood of a spy is not halal (because he is
not an apostate for mere spying)
[Ref: Fath al-Bari (12/310 or 324 H: 6939)]
Imam ibn Battal agrees with Imam tahawis view above in his Sharh *Ref: 5/264+ 43
And Imam ibn Mulaqqin ash-Shafèe (D. 804 A.H) who said commenting on ibn Battals
statement that whoever has validated killing a Muslim spy he has gone against the
hadeeth and the statements of the Mutaqaddimeen.
[Ref: At-tawdeeh li-Sharh Jaami` as-saheeh (18/160)]
Thereby showing us that how these Imams didnt even consider the Muslim spys blood
halal let alone consider him a Kafir for merely spying against Muslims!!
, : .
The people of rai/opinion said the spy should be punished (not killed) and imprisoned and
likewise is the fatwa of Imam shafèe and this obviously means they didnt consider the spy
to be an apostate due to his mere spying.
Whereas some scholars validated killing the spy
: ,

:)226 /20(
. .
43
: ]


The Hanabila in al-Furoo` of Ibn Muflih said that ibn Àqeel permitted killing of the
Muslim spy working for the kuffar and ibn Jawzi rahimahullah added that only if they
fear him to be a continuous threat and Imam Ahmad refrained from taking sides.
There is a lengthy debate on the differences among the scholars of the past and present
regarding the issue of killing a spy for ta`zeer44. Many earlier scholars have opposed it and
some have permitted it. But neither of the two made his takfeer despite the fact that a spy
is more harmful than a muharib.
As imam ibn rushd rahimahullah said:
{ : ,

- } .
A spy is more harmful to the Muslims than a muharib (war waging kafir); and is
responsible for causing more fasaad (tribulations) on the earth than a muharib and Allah
said regarding a Muharib Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and
His Messenger (Surah Maidah 33)
[Ref: al-Bayan wat-tahseel (2/526 onwards)]
For the sake of brevity transcribing these differences on the killing will be avoided in this e-
book because the main motive is to prove and show how the salaf did not make his
takfeer.
As for the Killing then our view is as Imam Malik rahimahullah said:
[RT] I am for neither (side) and my view in this is that it depends on the Ijtihad of the
Imam (ruler/authority)
So if some overzealous khawarij or the later 20th century mistaken fatawa from any
scholars be it from the Najd or anywhere come and oppose this ruling then enough for us
is to say that the earlier most salaf had one view with no difference and if not a consensus
44
See the encylopedia work titled Mawsooàtil-Ijma` fi fiqhil-Islami sub section:Masail al-Ijma` fi
Abwaab al-Jihad of Doctor Shaykh Saalih ibn Ùbayd al-Harbi (6/365-367)

than atleast an undisputed agreement that a Muslim spy does not become an apostate
due to his spying then who on earth are you to oppose them?!
Imam ibn Qayyum also says that,
I do not know of anyone from the scholars who spoke regarding the Kufr of a spy and
whoever among the scholars ruled to kill him did so from the perspective of ta`zeer
punishment and not due to him being an apostate. Do you not see what as-sahnoon said
that if a Muslim spy were to write to the Mushrikeen exposing the Muslim weakness
then kill him but his wealth is for his inheritors (because he is still a Muslim). And had
as-sahnoon commanded killing the spy due to his apostacy he wouldnt have said his
property is for his inheritors and Shaykh ul-Islam ibn taymiyyah concurred the same
ruling 45
Imam Ibn qayyim rahimahullah also said likewise elsewhere While discussing if any Muslim
Spy helps the kuffar against Muslims; He quoted different Madhahib and writes
:
46/5( . ).
Shafèe and Abu Hanifa and Ahmad rahimahumallah said do not kill him and they
deduced the proof for this from the incident of Hatib (r.a)and Ibn Àqeel from the
companions of Ahmad agreed with it. [Ref: Zad al-Maàd 5/64 46]

45
(:

. )

46
Full quote for students reference:
5- 225-224/3 ] [ :
(( :
" :
" :
:

)).
] 423-422\3 [ :

: [ ]406-405\35 4-
((:
:

.
:
)).
Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullah said regarding the issue of the permissibility
of killing a spy, that there are two main different views among scholars
First of them: One discusses about his killing. So it is permissible to kill a Muslim spy if it
serves as a maslaha and this is the statement of Imam Malik and some of the
companions of Imam Ahmad such as Ibn Àqeel and likewise is narrated about some of
the companions of Imam ash-shafèe and Ahmad regarding the issue of the permissibility
in killing a mubtadee` (i.e. one who calls/spread his innovation) because fasad (caused
by these acts) cannot be restrained except by killing (its causers) And likewise is the
: ((
: " : :
" :
. :
:
)).
: -
]: [ 275-274/6
(( :
" : "

.

: :
)).
- " : "
]: [ 33/20
(( - -
" :
")).
(( : :
))

Madhab of Imam Malik permitting the killing of a mubtadi` such as the qadariyyah and
those like them.
The Second view: That a Muslim spy is not killed and this is the madhab of Imam Abu
Hanifa and Imam ash-shafèe and Qadhi abu Ya`la among the companions of Imam
Ahmad and some texts indicate that Ahmad observed refrainment regarding this issue of
killing (i.e. leaving it up to the ijtihad of the ruler).
[Ref: Majmoo` al-Fatawa 35/405-406]
Imam Ahmad clearly says there is a difference of opinion which proves that had the
scholars deemed a Muslim spy by default an apostate then there wouldnt have been any
ikhtilaaf in killing him. Rather imam ibn taymiyyah clarifies that those who permitted killing
the spy are similar to the ruling of those who permitting killing a mubtadi`. But no one with
an ounce of wisdom would ever say that due to them permitting killing the innovators, the
innovators automatically must become apostates.
But since the Khawarij lack such ounces of wisdom, they should read ibn taymiyyahs
statement itself where he clarifies that the innovators and ilk were killed only due to their
fasad and had nothing to do with apostacy. In the same Passage he also says that
magicians, innovators etc. 47
Therefore merely due to a spys alliance with the Kuffar no matter the damage caused to
the Muslims he doesnt become a Kafir and this is precisely why Imam Abu Jafar at
Tahawi (from the earliest of giants) said:
And the Muslims (scholars) didn't differ in the issue that if a Muslim does this act (of
spying against Muslims) it doesn't make his blood permissible (i.e he remains as a
Muslim).
47
96] [ :
((

.)).

[Ref: 452/3 ]
Ibn Hajr confirms this saying by reiterating:
And Imam Tahawi quoted Ijma over the issue that the blood of Muslim Spy is not
permissible.
[Ref: 320/22 ]
This difference of opinion, as stated in the opening of this section 3, is to the extent that
some scholar such as Imam ibn Battal rahimahullah went on to say:
And those who permitted the killing of a Spy (merely because he was a spy) have
opposed the ahadeeth and the statements of the scholars of the earlier generation and
(thus) do not turn towards their saying [i.e pay no attention]
[Ref: Sharh Saheeh al-Bukhaari li Ibn Battal 5/164 | ]
But as informed, we will ignore and avoid delving into discussing this tangent as it does not
match with the aim of our book.
So in order to curb the fitnah of the spy or serve as a warning to others or as a disciplinary
punishment, the scholars permitted killing a Muslim spy. Mainly because as explained
above many times alliance to Kuffar can be due to wordily gains, or personal revenge or
fear of harm reaching ones family and related causes.
Imam ibn Taymiyyah himself said what non kharji realize and know due to their common
sense that:

It is possible that a person loves these enemies (of allah) for family reasons or other
personal benefits; then this would diminish from his emaan48 but not make him a kaafir
[Ref: Majmoo` al-Fatawa Volume 7/523]
And he rahimahullah after mentioning that what Hatib (r.a) did out of fear (and not
coercion) was a sin and not Kufr when he was talking about some of the things the
companions did that were sins Ibn Taymiyyah said and these issues occurred due to
desires and hastiness, not due to having doubts in the religion, like what happened with
Hatib from spying for Qurasih even though it is sins, and it is obligatory upon the one
who does it to repent
[Ref: Saarim ul-Maslool 202]
Imam ash-Shafèe was asked49
:

:)- - (

If one of the Muslims were to write (i.e. ally) to the mushriqeen among the ahl al-harb
about an impending attack by the Muslims or exposing one of the weaknesses of the
48
Similar to the prophetic hadeeth wherein he said no thief while stealing is a Muslim and likewise
for a fornicator. Neither of this means they become apostates but rather it means their emaan level
decreases heavily.
49
I remember when I first showed such quotes to some pro-takfeeri brothers they started making
lame excuses saying the issue of a spy is different than a ruler who allies. But as common sense
dictates, alliance is alliance be it by a ruler or a Muslim spy or a blacksmith if the kharji ruling of
Kufr is applied on any Muslim allying with the Kuffar then the pro-takfeeriyoon should not make
such excuses that the àmr of jasoos is different than that of a Haakim. In all honesty it is very lame
and ridiculous to even use such an argument in your defence. As ibn taymiyyah truly said: A man
may know that the truth is with another but alongside this he will reject (that truth) due to his
envy of him, or due to seeking elevation (over him) or due to a desire of the soul. And that desire
carries him to transgress against (that one) and reject what he says using every method whilst in
his heart he knows (full well) that the truth is with him. [Ref: Majmoo` al-Fatawa 7/191] and as
Shaykh Abd al-Raùf al-Manaawi said: "A hard heart does not accept truth even if the proofs are
numerous. [Ref: Fayd al-Qadir Sharh al-Jami` as-Saghir 1/94]

Muslims so by this act is his blood halaal, and this becomes a proof of him becoming of
the Mushrikeen by alliance?
Imam ash-shafèe rahimahullah replied:
" The blood of one whose Islam is established is not permitted (to shed), unless he kills
someone (so as qisas you can kill him) or indulges in adultery after marriage or exhibits
disbelief that is clear and established and continues to stay upon it.
And to expose the weaknesses of the Muslims in front of the kuffar or to aid them by
warning them about the impending Muslims attack or to help them damage or weaken
the Muslims does not necessitate Kufr or is not (an action that can be categorized as)
clear Kufr
[Ref: al-Ùmm of Imam Sha`fee under the chapter: under the

....]

sub title:
Imam Qurtubi rahimahullah said:

.
Whoever informs about the secrets of Muslims and he warns the disbelievers about it
exposing Muslim secrets to their enemies then he doesn't becomes apostate if he has
done this due to worldly purpose and his faith remains safe as it was done by
hatib(r.a)..
[Ref: Tafseer Qurtubi 18/52]

Summary and Conclusion of Section 3
- -
:
: . :
. :
. ( .)64/5
). ( )424-422/3 ( )942 -939 /4 (372/2
. :
. .
( )249/4: { }

" :
. ".
:
{ } " :)324/22: :
. :
. : ".
:
.
The above paragraphs pin point that as per the 4 Imaams they did not make takfeer of a
Muslim spy working and aiding the kuffar against the Muslims and many aimma e karaam
have cited ijmaa for this.
However the difference between the ùlema is on the validity of killing the spy as a
punishment or to avoid harm to the Muslim interests. Some favoured it and some didn't
both arguing based on texts, however there was no difference of opinion in the earlier era
that a Muslim spy is not to be regarded as a kaafir unless he is pleased or agrees with the
deen of the mushriqeen
Imam Ibn Hajar asqalani rahimahullah quotes qurtubi, imam sha`fie and imam tahawi and
others agreeing to this, for example in Fath al-Bari (12/394) under the chapter of
, under the sharh of the hadeeth of hatib radhiallahu ànhu, Ibn Hajar

rahimahullah brings this quotation of Imam sha`fi and Imam tahawi may allah have mercy
on these both giants as has been quoted in section 3 above.
And likewise is the stance of abu haneefah, al-àwzaee and others. For details see Zad al-
Maàd (5/64) and (3/422-424); al-Bida`(4-939-941); saarim al-Maslool (2/372)
Ibn Hajar also quotes qurutbi and others of the same view:
For more details see the bibliography quoted in the beginning of section 3.

Section 4
The madhab of najdi ulema regarding the types of

alliances with the kuffar
( :
) -
:
:
: .
{
" :} :

".
{ " :}
:
."
{ :
} " :

( : )
( :
) . : : :
: :
} {
} : {

{ } :
{ . :

}{ :

}
. :
" - .-

:

. :
. :
- -

.
" :
{ :
}

: . :
. .. ".
- -

-
..
The Allamah, the doctor Abdullah bin Abdul Azeez Al Jibreen mentioned in his research,
"Al Wala wal Bara, wa ahkaam at ta'amil ma'al kuffar wal mubtadi'ah wal fussaq" which
was published in "Al Bahooth Al Islamiyyah Magazine": Allying with the kuffar against
the Muslims is the same be it fighting with them (against Muslims), or supporting them
with money, or weapons, or by spying on the Muslims, or other than this; all this will
come under two categories:
First category: To help them in any way, just out of love for them, and desire to make
them victorious over Muslims (without another worldly reason), so this is disbelief that
removes out one from the millah.
Sheikh Abdur Rahman As - Sa'adi, in the tafseer of the statement of Allah:
"And whoever allies with them, then they are Zalimoon":
And that Zulm which happens on account of Tawalli, if this is a complete form of Tawalli,
then this will be kufr that will eject one from the boundaries of Islam, and this comes

under the level that is a very significant and extreme one, and there is an another form
as well (that does not removes out one from the millah).
And he also said in the tafseer of the statement of Allah,
"And whosoever allies them, then they are from among them.":
Indeed the complete form of Tawalli, requires one moving (from Islam) to their religion.
And the lesser form of Tawalli may even lead to bigger one, then it would increase
gradually little by little until he becomes one of them."
And Sheikh Abdul Lateef bin Abdur Rahman bin Hasan Aal Ash Sheikh after mentioning
the incident of Hatib, in the beginning of Suratul Mumtahinah:
"O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies.." (60:1)
are the ayaat concerning Hatib, and he rahimahullah said: "So Hatib here he has been
called one with Iman, and been described as such, and this prohibition has come in a
general way, but it is specifically for this reason, thus a proof about his intention for it,
with the fact that the ayah also proves that his act is a type of mawalah (friendship), and
that he went to them with (some sort of) affection, and that the one who did that act has
deviated from the path, but his statement, "Regarding him, he has told you the truth (so
let him go)" proves that he did not make takfeer due to that, if he believes in Allah and
his messenger, without any doubt or suspicion (about Islam), rather he did it for worldly
reason.
And had he made takfeer on him, he wouldn't let him go. Nor would he say, "What do
you know; perhaps Allah looked upon the Badr warriors and said, 'Do as you like, for I
have forgiven you.'"
This is why one cannot make takfeer on him; so we say: Had he committed kufr, nothing
of his past good deeds (such as Badr) would be of any value due to kufr (al akbar) and it's
ruling; as kufr eradicates and wipes off that what was before, because of the statement
of Allah: "And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the
Hereafter, will be among the losers." (5:5)
And his statement, "But if they had associated others with Allah, then worthless for
them would be whatever they were doing." (6:88)

And kufr makes the good deeds worthless, and iman itself completely; so it's hard to
think that (his act is kufr).
As for his saying, the Exalted, - "And whosoever turns to them (wa man yatawallahum),
from amongst you then he is from them." And his saying, "You will not find a people who
believe in Allah and the last day loving those who oppose Allah and his messenger", and
also his saying, "O you who believe! Take not for Auliyaa (protectors and helpers) those
who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the
scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, not from among the disbelievers, and fear
Allah if indeed you are true believers. (5:57)
The sunnah has explained it, and has restricted it and has specified it, to be in relation to
the unrestricted general muwalaat (frienship, loyalty). And the root of all muwalaat is
hubb (affection / love) and assistance (nusrah) and friendship (sadaaqah), and there are
many levels than this. And every sin (from all of this), has its own share of sin and
portion of threat (of punishment) and rebuke."
[TN: Shaykh Àbdul Lateef censuring the juhala who make rampant takfeer without actually
dividing the allegiance into their proper types said:
And this is known to the salaf, those who are deeply rooted in ìlm from amongst the
Sahaaba and Tabaèen with respect to this topic and also other than it. However the affair
has become difficult and the meanings have become hidden and the rulings in this regard
became confusing to the khuloof (later generations) of the foreigners (non arabs) and
those raised among arabs but not truly arabs, those who have no knowledge with respect
to this matter (of takfeer) and nor do they have any sound knowledge or acquaintance
with the meanings of the quran and sunnah]
End of the speech of Sheikh Abdul Lateef rahimahullah.
(He spoke in detail on this topic, one may refer to Durar as Saniyyah 1/ 473-472)
And more than one from among the people of knowledge related the ijmaa' (consensus)
of scholars that alliance with kuffar against Muslims, out of pure love and affection
towards them, and desire for their victory over Islam and the Muslims is kufr that
removes out one from the millah.

Second category: To ally with the kuffar through any form of alliance, which may be for
the sake of
(i) personal benefit, or

(ii) out of fear, or
(iii) worldly enmity between him and the one who he fights against with the
kuffar,
then this is a prohibited alliance, and one of the major sins, but it is not a form of kufr
that removes out one from the millah. And from among the proofs that this form of
alliance does not entitles takfeer: Is what Imam At - Tahawi related the consensus of the
people of knowledge that it is not permissible to kill the one who (merely) spies on
Muslims.
And what At - Tahawi related also proves that (mere) spying does not makes a person an
apostate.
And the proof for the consensus is: (the case of) Hati bin Abi Balta'ah radhiàllahu anhu.
He spied on the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and on the Muslims at the time of
conquest of Makkah. He wrote to a Polythiest lady of Makkah informing about the plan
of the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, though the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam had made this absolutely secret, so that Quraish doesn't (gets prepared) for the
fight. And this was the reason for Hatib (that he would help the Quraish now, and
Quraish would in return help him) and he wrote this letter for his personal benefits, but
inspite of all that the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not did judge him to be an
apostate, nor did he put on him the punishment for apostacy, thus proves that what he
did (ie., spied) is not a kufr that removes out one from millah.
Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah while speaking about disbelievers: "It may be found
among people love due to blood relation, or due to some (worldly, non - religious)
reason, so it will be considered a sin that would decrease his Iman, and he won't become
a disbeliever due to that, like what is found (in the case of) Hatib when he wrote some
(secret) information of the (plan of the) prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Allah
revealed concerning it.
And like what is found in the case of Sa'd ibn Ubadah when he helped ibn Ubay in the
incident of ifk, so Sa'd bin Muadh said: "By Allah dont kill him, and you wont be able to
kill him." Aisha said: "He was a righteous man in the past, but jealousy (of his tribal love)

overpowered him." And due to this doubt Umar called Hatib a Munafiq (hypocrite). For
Umar interpreted him to be a hypocrite due to the doubt of what he did."
(End quote Sheikhul Islam Above fatwa of shaykh ibn jibreen rahimahullah and ibn
taymiyyah was slightly annoted and modified from the translation given to me by Arshan
Ansari in his love for the ulema e Najd and defending them from the accusation that all of
them fell into the wrong ijtihad of not dividing muwallat into types or distinguishing the
types of alliance which makes one a kafir and the type which doesnt.)
So when it is proved that what Hatib did, is not apostasy, and there is a consensus on this,
(knowing the) fact that sending the letter through the polytheist woman of Makkah would
help the Quraishites for the battle, and this is against what the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa
sallam wanted by keeping the information about the attack secret, so what Hatib did was
(in reality) a huge (form of) alliance to the kuffar in their war against the Muslims which
was one of greatest battles (victory) in (the history) of Islam. When that is proved (ie.
clearified), know that alliance by itself will not be considered kufr until the reason for
alliance is love for the disbeliever and desire for victory over Muslims.
Shaykh Àbdur rahman ibn Hasan Aal-Ash-shaykh (ibn Àbdul wahhab) said:
Verily Muwalaat (allegiance/loyalty) is divided into two types.
(i) The muwalat which is unrestricted, general (i.e. absolute) and this is clear
Kufr and here with this characteristic, it is actually synonymous with the
meaning of at-tawallee and based upon this are the various evidences that
have come concerning the severe prohibition of having muwaalat to the
Kuffar carried and that the one who turns to them then he has disbelieved.
(ii) The muwalaat that is specific (khaassah) and this muwalaat to the Kuffar is
due to wordily goal, whilst having a sound belief without concealing the
intentions of Kufr and apostacy (idmaar niyyat il-Kufr war-riddah). Such as
what occurred from Haatib ibn abi baltah (radhiallahu ànhu) in revealing the
secrets of the Messenger of Allah (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam).
And this division of Muwaalat into two types has also been said by al-Qurtubi
(4/57; 18/52) in his Tafseer and also by Imam abu bakr ibn arabi in Ahkaam
ul-Quran (6/1770)

[Ref: Durar as-sunniyah (1/235-236)]
Shaykh Àbdul Lateef ibn Àbdur rahman Aal-ash-Shaykh an-Najdi rahimahullah who said in
his famous book...The ruling of allying with the kuffar and some issues relating to Takfir
that..
the action of Haatib is a type of allying with the kufar, and he showed allegiance to
them, and the one who does that is misguided and taken a path of misguidance, but his
statement (of the Prophet) he has told you the truth, clear his path) is clear that he
hasnt disbelieved due to that, if he believes in Allah and his messenger, and he has no
doubt, but he only did that for a worldly gain. And if it was disbelief he would not of said
clear his path, and it cant be said that the fact the Prophet said it may be that Allah
looked into the hearts of the people of badr& said do that which you wish for I have
forgiven you was the reason he did not disbelieve, because if he did disbelieve there
would remain nothing from his good deeds. Then after mentioning the verses of Allah,
Maidah 51, Mujadilah 22, Maidah 58 the shaykh says he says the sunnah has explained
these verses and it has limited and specified it to complete allegiance
[Ref: in Ad-durar as-saaniya 1/474]
Some of the Najdi ulema rahimahullah errd in this issue and went in the extreme and their
fame made their wrong fatawa spread like wild-fire whose effects we see to this date
among the Salafi bretheren. This is why you will see that there is a china wall of a
difference between the scholars of India-Pakistan region and the Arab hijazi scholars on
the issue of Takfeer and Tabdee`.

Section 5
Briefly refuting some kharji notions
The kharji fatwa of hurling takfeer by the mere apparent action of a Muslim allying with
the Kuffar is not only alien to the salaf but also in contradiction to quranic verses and
ahadeeth.
Note that the issue of judging by the apparent is not being opposed here, rather we
believe in this the way it is to be as understood by scholars. However the apparent ruling is
not unrestricted such that anyone can go around hurling Kufr fatwa and calling Muslims
munafiqeen based on some of their apparent actions.
If this were the case then the moment you see a Muslim man holding a bottle of wine or
drinking wine youd make his takfeer and likewise the moment you see a zaani Muslimah
youd make her takfeer. But everyone with a sane mind knows that these major sins are
not necessarily committed by Muslims under the guise of making these sins as halal.
Below are some verses and quotes disproving the kharji notion of making takfeer upon
someone based on his mere apparent action of helping/aiding the kuffar.

Chapter 5.1
The Kharji notion that Muslims can never exhibit

friendliness towards war-mongering Kuffar and if
they do then it is Kufr al Akbar based on the
apparent action of friendliness.
Before we get to answering this claim, there is another adjoined claim under this that we
cannot be kind to Non Muslims. This is an outright bizzare prerogative . We all know the
love, trade , business between Muslims from the earliest generations between them and
their Non Muslims relatives, friends, partners etc. There is a particular meaning of the
verses which prohibit muslims from taking them as allies. Also the verses speak about a
specific category of non Muslims who abuse revile or hate Islam. As for many Pro Muslim
type Non Muslims, who help us and fight for us and our cause both back then and even
today.
For example the prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) agreed to let go an equivalent of 50
mercedes Benz of that time (i.e. prisoner of war) had Mutim ibn àdi was alive. And all of
this why? Not because Mutim did a favour for the entire group of Muslims. Rather he did
a favour only for the prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam by giving him protection to stay in
Makkah after he retured from Taaif, without himself accepting his faith.50
Furthermore, the level of repayment and good manners and gratefulness expressed by our
own infallible Messenger àlayhi salatu was-salaam was displayed when he went to the
grave of the king of hypocrites until qiyamah - Àbdullah ibn Ubay (al-salool) , placed this
munafiq and enemy of Allah on his his (àlayhi salatu was-salaam) knees, spat his blessed
and honourable saliva on his shroud, and gave his own personal shirt to shroud in. All this
because he had given al-Àbbas (his uncle) a shirt to wear when he was held captive during
Badr.51
50
Narrated Jubair bin Mutìm (radhiallahu ànhu): The Prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam) talked
about war prisoners of Badr saying: Had al-Mutìm bin Àdee been alive and interceded with me
for these mean people, I would have freed them for his sake. *Ref: Bukhaari (2393, 6526)+
51
Narrated: Jabir bin Abdullah: Allah's Apostle came to Abdullah bin Ubai (a hypocrite) after his
death and he has been laid in his pit (grave). He ordered (that he be taken out of the grave) and he

The list of our prophet and his companions generosity towards war mongering non
Muslims goes to a big list. Likewise Islam advocated treating Non Muslims with their full
rights including the umpteen warnings given by the Prophet (sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam)
for misbehaving and being unjust to your jewish neighbour. The narrations are far too
many to quote here and a simple search will clarify these blood thirsty false claims against
Islam. Moving on to the main claim of this chapter.
Allah said:
Let not the believers take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any
do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye
may Guard yourselves from them. But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the
final goal is to Allah. [Surah Aal-Imran, verse 28]
Imam Bukhari records in his Saheeh:
} {
Except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them (3:28) and this
is Taqqiyah
Here Allah is allowing us to take precaution by befriending these kuffar which obviously
would entail helping them and aiding them in one way or the other. Now as the prophet
sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam informed us, the quran and its meaning does not go pass by
their throat and this is why despite this verse the khawarij use the excuse of making
takfeer based on a mere apparent action of alliance by a Muslim. To elucidate this more,
In his Saheeh, al-Bukhaari included a chapter entitled Chapter on politeness with people
in which he said:
It was narrated from Abu Darda(radhiallahu ànhu):
:

" .

was taken out. Then he placed him on his knees and threw some of his saliva on him and clothed
him in his (the Prophet's) own shirt. Allah knows better (why he did so). 'Abdullah bin Ubai had
given his shirt to Al-Abbas to wear. Abu Harun said, "Allah's Apostle at that time had two shirts and
the son of 'Abdullah bin Ubai said to him, 'O Allah's Apostle! Clothe my father in your shirt which
has been in contact with your skin.' " Sufyan added, "Thus people think that the Prophet clothed
'Abdullah bin Ubai in his shirt in lieu of what he (Abdullah) had done (for Al Abbas, the Prophet's
uncle.)"

We smile at people when our hearts are cursing them.
-:
Ibn Muflih al-Hanbali (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
,

:

.
This attitude of Abu Darda does not mean approving of something haraam; rather it is
politeness that may achieve some purpose. This is what is meant by the report narrated
in al-Saheehayn and elsewhere from Àishah (may Allaah be pleased with her): O
Àishah, the worst of people in status before Allaah is the one whom people leave alone
for fear of his foul mouth.
So this is what the verse means. In fact in Tafseer Dur al-Manthur, Volume 2 page 176 we
read that the early scholars used to read the word Taqata as Taqiyyah in this verse:

Abi Raja used to recite ela an tataqu menhum taqyyiah
We also read:
Narrated Àbd bin Hamid that Qatada used to recite ela an tataqu menhu taqyyiah
Imam Ibn Hajar Asqalani in his commentary of the above cited text of Sahih Bukhari
records:
Taqata and Taqqiyah are the same thingthe meaning of this verse is that no believer
shall befriend an unbeliever (some say harbi unbeliever) either internally or externally
except in Taqqiyah externally. It is permitted to befriend him if he is afraid of them but

he must keep enmity from them internally
[Ref: Fatah ul Bari, Volume 12 page 313]
Sunni scholar Ahmad bin Mustafa al-Muraaghi (d. 1317 H) states under the commentary of
the cited verse:
Scholars have deduced the permissibility of Taqiyyah from this verse wherein a person
speaks or acts in a manner that is contrary to Haqq (the truth) so that he protects his life,
property and honour from an enemy.
[Ref: Tafseer Muraaghi, Volume 3 page 133]
Allamah Mahmood Alusi al-Baghdadi stated:
:
: :

This verse contains proof regarding the permissibility of Taqiyyah. Scholars have
defined Taqiyyah as to protect ones life, property and honor from evil of the enemy and
enemies are of two kinds, one that is based on difference in religion such as between a
non-believer and a Muslim and the second type of enmity is due to worldly affairs such
as wealth, possessions and sovereignty and leadership.
[Ref: Tafseer Ruh Al-Maani, Volume 2 page 479]
Qadhi Baydhawi states in in his commentary of the verse states:

But if you want to remain safe from the disbelievers, means, if you have some fear from
them regarding a thing from which you want to remain safe from them then you can
surely take them as friends Allah (swt) has stopped the believers from befriending the
disbelievers either internally or expressly, but if there is any fear from them then one can
exhibit friendliness.
[Ref: Tafseer Baydhawi, volume 1, page 134]

Allamah Fakhruddin Razi had commented on this verse:
Undoubtedly, there is no harm in practicing Taqiyyah if a believer is caught up between

non-believers and his life or property comes under threat from them. In such
circumstances he should conceal his enmity from them. Infact, he should talk in such a
manner that his words should show passion. His heart should not confirm what he is
saying. Taqiyyah does not have an effect on ones heart; it only has an external effect.
[Ref: Tafseer Kabeer, Volume 2, Page 626]
The reason for quoting these explanations was not to promote the Rafidhi version of
taqiyyah. Rather the statements are self-explanatory in when taqiyyah can be used and
these are very few specific circumstances. In all of these is a proof that Allah permits one
to exhibit friendliness with the harbi kuffar out of a reason and thus we cannot as the
kharji do take the mere apparent action of friendliness of a Muslim ruler and use this as
an excuse to make his and his entire bandwagons takfeer.

Chapter 5.2
The Kharji notion that doing business with Harbi

Kuffar is Kufr al-Akbar at all times
Remember that the main differentiation between the khawarij during the sahaaba and the
Sunnis back then was that the khawarij never differentiated between the levels of sin or its
category. They made blanket takfeer of major sins and likewise they make blanket takfeer
on any and everything.
The discussion on trading with the harbi Kuffar (not normal kuffar); is a vast discussion
beyond the scope of this book. However just to prove and quickly show the readers that no
it is not Kufr al Akbar but it could be Haram, it could be a major sin or it could be halal
depending on the situation but to make it Kufr al-Akbar due to the mere trading without
the proof of the trade being conducted to aid their religion, then this is a kharji notion.
The Khawarij always use the incident of Thumama ibn Uthal radhiallahu ànhu (the
chief/ruler of Banu Hanifah of Yamamah) going to Makkah and the Quraysh misbehaving
with him due to him accepting Islam and he (r.a) threatening them to block their food
supplies until the Messenger of Allah doesn't permit.
They use this incident to make Takfeer on any and every Muslim organization or nation
that deals with the non Muslims. Without going into much detail, the clarification is as
follows:
1) Had trading with the enemies of Islam been Kufr al-Akbar, thumama (r.a) would not
have waited until he was deliberately annoyed and provoked into taking that decision
2) Had it been Kufr al -Akbar he wouldn't have said he will continue the trade if the
prophet allowed because the prophet would not allow Kufr to take place.
3) The very Prophet of Allah àlayhi salatu was salaam was sent a letter by the Quraysh
saying

the elders have been killed by the sword and the children by hunger/famine
The prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam then out of mercy permitted Thumama (r.a) to
continue trading wheat/etc.
this incident is hasan and reported via two routes - Abu Huraira and Ibn Àbbas.
[Ref: This incident was reported by Abu Huraira and Ibn Àbbas r.a.a - Musnad Ahmad
(7361); Mu`jam as-Sahaba of Ibn Qani` (1/131); Sunan al-Kubra of Bayhaqi (9/66); Dalail
an-Nabuwa (4/81-89 - wow trading with the enemies of Islam hell bent on killing the
prophet incident was taken and put in his book Proofs of the prophethood !!); Tareekh al-
Madeenah aka Akhbaar al-Madinah of Ibn Shabbah (2/433-439); As for ibn Àbbas's
narration then see Tafseer al-Tabari (17/93); Ma`rifat as-sahaba of Imam ibn Nuàym as-
sufi (1/507 No: 1422); Dalail an-Nabuwa of Bayhaqi (4/81); Al-Isabah of Imam ibn Hajar
(1/411). A short version of this is also present in Saheehayn]
After narrating this incident, Imam ibn Hibban said:
In this report is a proof that doing business in Harbi (war mongering non Muslim) areas is
permissible for those who are (pious and) cautious.
[Ref: al-Ihsan (4/44; No: 1239)]
Imam abu bakr ibn arabi al-Maliki (Rahimahullah) said:
The removal of doubts and suspicion is the fact that the Imams have united upon the
permissibility of trade with ahlul harb
[Ref: 236/23( :); 525/2( ])

Chapter 5.3
The Kharji notion that many scholars have said

whoever allies with them then he is of them in
ruling
They used statements of Ibn Taymiyyah And then they use statements of al-Qurtubi or
many other scholars and the tafseer of the verse whoever allies with them is like them.
The use the fatawa of these scholars which say that whoever allies with the Kuffar is like
them. Now yes there is no denial in these statements of the tafseer of the scholars,
however this is a Mujmal (general) statement and these statements on allegiance by
scholars imply sin it may imply kufr al-Asghar or may imply Kufr al-Akbar. There is no
defacto notion that the moment a Muslim allies with the Kafir he is one of them thus he
becomes a kafir himself. No as has be proven above from the same scholars they quote i.e.
ibn taymiyyah, qurtubi and many others that there are conditions in Alliances and not
every Alliance makes a Muslim apostate.
So using the statements of the scholars forbidding from allying with the Kuffar, or
forbidding from taking them as wali or saying whoever does then he is like them. These
statements imply major sin but does not always imply Kufr al-Akbar as has been shown
above. The statements should be thus used properly in their right context.
For example Imam Ibn Jarir at-tabari in his tafseer regarding the verse says whoever allies
with the Kuffar then he is free from Allah and allah is free from him. This is similar to the
statements of the prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam wherein he said that whoever
doesnt pray fajr then allah does not guarantee to protect him. Or the messenger of allah
said whoever cheats he is not from us or his saying The one who learned archery and
then gave it up, is not from us or his saying whoever does not show mercy to the young
ones is not from us. Likewise similar Arabic expressions are used by Allah and his
messenger time and time again which have different meanings based on the situation and
context.
This is why Allah s.w.t says in the quran that whoever does not judge by the law of Allah
he is dhaalim or faasiq or kaafir etc. So these statements do not have only ONE standard
meaning. Their meaning and its implication vary from situation to situation.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimahullah) said refuting this very notion:
And likewise is the interpretation of the Khawarij and the Mu`tazila (regarding the
expressions of not from me and they say It implies) exiting the faith completely
including that they deserve to burn in hell (forever) and all of these are rejected
interpretations
[Ref: Majmò al Fatwaa 7/525]
And likewise I have read in Musnad Ishaq ibn Rahawy a few days ago the explanation of
Abu Ja`far rahimahullah regarding the hadeeth that a zani while committing zinah is not a
mumin that it does not mean as the khawarij understand it to mean which is kufr al-
Akbar, rather Imam abu ja`far drew two circles the first one being of emaan and the outer
circle being of Islam so he said that it removes him from the inner circle but he still remains
under the outer circle of Islam. I do not remember the reference but it is in the Shamela
copy of Musnad Ishaq ibn rahawy under the first volume.
Ibn Hajr asqalani rahimahullah comments on the chapter of Saheeh Bukhari (

) Chapter: The one who tears his clothes is "Not from us" and says
Saying of Prophet (" ) Not From us" (then) it means "Not from our Sunnah
or our way" it does not mean (that the one who does it) is expelled from religion and on
the contrary the benefit of him referring this word (i.e denotation) is to intensify
condemnation over occurence of such things, like (when) a person says to his son while
rebuking I am not from you and you are not from me, (then) it means you are not on my
way.
[Translated by Abdul raheem, Fath al Baari 3/163 taken from systemoflife.com]
Thus these warnings and the wordings used by the salaf against allying with the Kuffar are
truly dangerous and yes applicable, but they have to be understood in their proper
context. I am not saying that when they say Apple it means orange, rather what I am saying

is when they say BAD APPLE then Bad has various levels and it could be rotten or it
could be slightly tainted. Likewise when they say whoever allies with the Kuffar he is one
of them, then this also has levels and meanings. It could mean he is Kafir like them if his
alliance is based on hatred against Islam or love for their religion or he could be a faasiq
faajir if his intention is wordily gains alone.
And the above sections enlist more than enough proof walillahil hamd to prove so.

Chapter 5.4
The Kharji notion the outcome of the Alliance

determines if the one who allied remains a Muslim
or a Kafir
Khariji doubt: How can one remain a Muslim if his alliance led to the spread of
secularism and deviated many Muslims in that Muslim nation into leaving their
religion?
As is usual with the Khawarij, they always come up with principles and notions
unheard of in the Islamic discipline. Many times, even sincere brothers share this
doubt and mostly due to them conceptualizing the act of allying against Muslims to be
such a massive sin that they simply cannot digest it being anything less than Kufr al -
Akbar. On one hand the gheera for fellow Muslims is impressive but on the other the
incorrect deduction is very dangerous as everything the khawarij do they justify it
starting with making takfeer. If there is no takfeer, half of their agendas would have
no base to stand upon.
To explain in a simple way let me give you a hypothetical example of two Muslims
namely A and B and one Non Muslim C. Now A allies with C in usurping the house
of B which eventually leads to B and his family staying on the street which eventually
leads to unfortunate events such as someone coming and raping Bs wife and
someone kidnapping his daughter . Consequently B is so depressed that slowly he
starts drinking and then gradually leaves Islam until he dies.
Now as has been explained and proven in the above sections of this book , Alliance
for wordily reason only does not make one a Kafir. A allied with C for wordily reason
i.e. property. He did not intend for Bs wife to be raped or his daughter to be
kidnapped nor B leaving Islam. So whatever happened thereafter was not som ething A
signed up for nor intended. So how can we make As takfeer due to something he did
not directly intend ? Making Takfeer of A is as absurd as making takfeer of a Muslim
who encourages/lures his friends into drinking and clubbing and one of them

eventually leaves Islam months /years later. Does it remotely make sense to make his
takfeer?! If we were to do so then there would be no difference between us and the
khawarij because it is well known that the khawarij are distinguished for making
takfeer on major sins (such as alcohol, zinah, etc.)
To add to the above angle, let us recollect the incident of certain Sahaaba who joined
quraish against the Prophet sallalahu àlayhi wa sallam on the day of Badr. The day
was so sensitive and crucial that the messenger of Allah àlayhi salatu was-salaam
raised his hand up to utter words such as Oh Allah if this small band of groups were to
perish no one would be left to worship you or words to this effect and the prophet
said this despite many Muslims residing in Madeenah that day.
So one can imagine the importance of that day. Yet when Muslims were caught aiding
the quraish against Muslims, did the prophet àlayhi salatu was-salaam make their
takfeer?! Did he say Because of you such and such number of Muslims have died,
their wives widowed, their children orphaned , etc. etc thus you are a kafir?!!
Dear readers, even for the sake of argument we were to agree to this alien notion the
outcome of the Alliance determines if the one who allied remains a Muslim or a Kafir
yet how exactly would we determine the red line to declare someone a Kafir?
So muslim A becomes a kafir when
(i) He allies with C (verbally/written/gesture, etc) or when

(ii) He removes B from his home? Or when
(iii) B and his family sleep on the street ? or when
(iv) Bs wife gets raped? Or when
(v) Bs daughter is kidnapped? Or when
(vi) B starts drinking? Or when
(vii) B leaves Islam 4 years or so later?
If they say we make his Takfeer when B leaves Islam 4 years or 4 months later then we
would have to Make Takfeer of every Muslim who calls someone or the other Muslim
towards sinning after which that Muslim eventually leaves Islam either by making that
sin halal or in many other ways which he can.

If they say they make takfeer the moment A allies with C against B, then this is once
again refuted by the consensus of the scholars and their understanding as has
preceeded in the above chapters and sections.
Brothers and sisters, one has to understand that alliance with the Kuffar can be on
purely monetary reasons such as You invade that land and if you give me the Oil
contracts I will sell it to you for half the price for 40 years so you can have your war
cost returned to you in 2 years . This was his reason for alliance. He didnt say
Invade the land and remove Islam and spread secularism. Nor did he intend the
destruction of Islam or veneration of Christianity or secularism. He simply wanted
Money and whatever the Kafir did to the land and their agendas is not his fault. He
didnt ask them to remove Islam and install temples.
The best of these Ummah, the inheritors of the prophet, the ones who lived in the
best of times and those having the highest level of Gheerah a Muslim could i.e. the
Imams of salafus saliheen have a totally different understanding of this issue than the
Khawarij. They were more educated than us, more loyal to Islam, more pious and
honest, superior and much more than us and they have all opined making distinctions
between the types of tawalli. They did not say if his alliance breaks 2 masajid, one
madrasah, 5 chairs and 50 tables then he becomes a Kaafir. Nor did they stipulate any
such number or after-effects as can be seen from the fatwa of Ibn Taymiyyah on the
issue of the Muslims of Mardin.
All those Muslim rulers and their armies or governers and their families and friends of
the past such as the Abbasid rulers or those who came after them allied with non
Muslims, but never did we see the salaf due to this mere alliance pronounce takfeer
of them. If they did, then by Allah 80% of the former Govts of Muslim past would fall
under apostates and to claim as such is absurd.

The khawarij use quotes of Maliki Ulema on one incident of Mutamid ibn Ìbad the
ruler of sevilla (spain) but even is not in their support.
Ibn Hamad says: "al-Mu'tamid ibn Ibad, the ruler of Seville (in southern Spain) who
was from the rulers of the groups in al-Andalus sought help of the Ifranj against the
muslims so the maliki scholars of that time declared in a legal ruling that he was an
apostate [Ref: al-Istiqsa li Akhbar Duwal al-Maghrib al-Aqsa 5/75 by Shihabud-Din
Abul-Abbas Ahmad bin Khalid an-Nasiri]
The author of "al-Istiqsa" refers it back to "an-Nawazil" of al-Burzuli and one can find
it in the printed version of al-Burzulis fatawa, volume 4, page 22. al-Burzuli says:
"I remember seeing in (the book) of Ibn as-Sayrafi about the state of Lamtunah from
Sanhaja tribes that al-Mu'tamid bin Ibad sought their (the enemies) help in fight
against Murabitun and Allah bestowed the victory to murabitun against them, he
fled, then agreed to the judgement of Yusuf bin Tashifin, leader of Sanhaja. He
sought fatwa from the jurists [1] and the majority [2] gave fatwa that it was
apostasy. His Qadi and some jurists did not consider it to be apostasy [3] and did
not allow his blood because of apostasy [4]. So (Ibn Tashifin) implemented this
fatwa and took the lightest verdict [5] and moved him to Aghmat and placed him
there untill he died."
This incident is a historic incident. If we were to analyse the chain of this then surely
there are problems connecting the author to the reported event . Nevertheless, the
khawarij quote this incident without realizing
[1] As per Khariji logic, the moment a ruler asks/makes/seeks a fatwa from scholars
under him then this is tantamount to doubting the sincerity of the scholars and a
permission to use derogatory terms such as Govt stooges/govt scholars/govt
puppets/so on. So how is this incident in their favour when their own logic and
standards oppose this method?!
[2] and [3] Majority of the Maliki ulema of Andalus under that rebelling muslim
leaders gave a fatwa of apostacy but not all of them which again shows that at the
very least not only were there scholars who didnt agree to kufr fatwa PLUS on what

grounds can the khawarij force one sided ijtihad on their opponents? Even if they
agree to this one particular fatwa of some maliki scholars what right do they have to
enforce this on others as if it is a qati` ud-dalal wa-saboot?!
[4] This ruling is the same as explained above that many times the Prophet sallalahu
àlayhi wa sallam permitted killing a Muslim not due to Kufr . Likewise the scholars
who permitted killing a spy did not do it due to presuming/holding him as an
apostate.
[5] How ironic, they dont follow the very people they quote as proof as their ideal!.
The king rahimahullah here chose the lighter fatwa due to the severity of killing a
Muslim but the khawarij as is seen always opt for the most harshest one. What doub le
standards indeed !
Moving ahead, we dont know why the Maliki scholars actually pronounced Takfeer of
Mutamid. Because as per the Maliki Madhab shown above making takfeer for mere
alliance is not the case. This means the only alternative reason will be understood if
we were to ponder how things worked back then in those days. So when Yusuf (r.h)
besieged the city , instead of surrendering to Yusuf , Mutamid surrended the city and
its sovereignty to the Christians thereby giving them not only the Muslim land but full
permission to spread their religions because this was how things were back then.
There was no United nation charter ensuring religious freedom. Whoever conqueres
the land his religion prevails by force and not even sweet talk or indirect m arketing
strategies we see today. This was the de-facto rule.
So the Maliki scholars made takfeer due to Mutamid asking Christians to come and
remove Islam and spread their religion. If the khawarij disagree then they have to
show us the reason why *some* of the Maliki scholars made takfeer. If they claim it is
due to alliance we ask says who? Their presumption from a blank action is not wahi
from the heavens that we take it as proof. If they interpret their action of takfeer to
be due to apostasy then we too can have the opposite interpretation. More so, they
have no proof to back their presumption but we have the official statements of Maliki
madhab proving that mere alliance in itself is never kufr al-Akbar.
And even for the sake of argument we agree that *some* Maliki scholars of Seville
made takfeer of Mutamid they restricted the takfeer to him alone. Not in the wildest

of dreams did they do what the Khawarij do i.e. extend the Takfeer to the entire govt.
their friends and sympathizers and etc. etc. So once again the behaviour and manhaj
of the khawarij is in opposition to what the Andalusian scholars did. I have no idea
how are they even using this event as proof for them when almost whole of what it
contains is completely opposite to their methodology and belief system.
And Maliki scholars were generally a bit harsh when it came to this issue of killing.
This is why ash-Shawkani said about them in tarjumah of Burhanud-Din al-Buqa'i in his
"al-Badr at-Tali'"
"

."
Along with this, the Maliki scholars have a detailed division and explanation regarding
the different types of alliance and rebellion pairing with a non muslim.
For example, the Malikis divide Bughaat into:
A- Muta'awilin : Those who rebel against a Fasiq are Muta'awilin as well.
If the Muta'awilin seek help from Ahl ul-Dhimmah then the Ahd of the Dhimmis
remains and they don't have to compensate life of wealth. [refer to above chapters
and sections such as 2.2]
B - Mu'anidin : They have to compensate life and wealth. And if the Dhimmis helped
them then their Ahd is broken. Al-Mu'tamid was probably from this type.
To summarize, using such odd events and the fatawa of a few scholars without even
knowing the nawazil or the reason of their takfeer is preposterous and the last thing
from being in their favour

Section 6
Conclusion and Reminder
The conclusion is plain and simple. There are rules and protocols to be followed for not
only pronouncing takfeer but also analysing the situation before considering it Kufr al-
Akbar.
The Kharji notion of making takfeer on every apparent alliance with the Kuffar against
Muslims is devastating and harmful to the Muslim world as can be seen today with the
various Kharji groups trying their best to make Muslim life all the more miserable twisting
and turning the Islamic texts to their political advantage.
The Reminder for these groups and pro-individuals are a couple of incidents and fatawa
from scholars, perhaps after reading this they might open their eyes.
A reminder to all khawarij and their Hulafa - He died fighting for Allahs sake and
entered Hell!
Imam Muhammad ibn Wadaah [1] (may Allah shower him with Mercy) narrated in his
book Al-Bida (2/87) that, Abu Ubaida ibn Huzaifa said:
:
:
:

:
:

:

:
! : :
.
:

.
:

: .
:

: .
A man came to Huzaifa ibn Al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him), while Abu Musa Al-
Ashari (may Allah be pleased with him) was sitting, and said:

What do you say of a man who fought *vigorously+ with his sword, angered for Allahs
[sake], until he was killed, where would he be: in Heavens or in Hell?
So Abu Musa said: In Heaven.
So Huzaifa said: Inquire more from the man [about what he is asking] and then explain to
him more what you are saying!
So Abu Musa said: Subhan Allah! What was that you asked?
So the man said: I said: A man fought [vigorously] with his sword, angered for [the sake of]
Allah until he was killed, is he in Heaven or in Hell?
So Abu Musa said: In Heaven.
So Huzaifa said: Inquire more from the man [about what he is asking] and then explain to
him more what you are saying!
This repeated for three times.
At the third time, he (i.e. Abu Musa) said: By Allah, I will not ask him [to clarify] anymore.
So Huzaifa called for the man, and said:

: .

Slow down, for if your companion fought with his sword until he *is killed+, and was in line
with the Truth until he dies upon it then he is in Heaven.
But if he was not on the path of the Truth [rather was on the path of Falsehood], and Allah
did not aid him to the Truth *until he dies+, then he is in Hell!
Then he said: By the One in whose Hand is my soul! There will enter Hell, from the likes
of that which you have asked about, more than such-and-such (signifying a huge number)
[2].

Reference:
[1] He is Al-Imam al-Haafiz, Abu Abdillah, Muhammad ibn Wadaah al-Marawani. The
Muhaddith of Andalus, along with Baqi ibn Makhlad (may Allah have mercy on them both).
He died in the year of 286 or 287 of Hijra.
Imam Al-Dhahabi said in the Siyar: Through Baqi ibn Makhlad and Muhammad ibn
Wadaah Andalusia was turned into a land of Hadith.
[2] And from the examples of these are the Khawarij, who the Messenger of Allah foretold
about, who fought vigorously for their Falsehood against Ali (may Allah be well pleased
with him), claiming and believing that it was for Allahs sake. The Messenger of Allah said
of them, as was reported by Imam Abu Dawud:
They are worst of the people and creation. Glad tidings is to the one who kills them or is
killed by them. They call to the book of Allah, but they have nothing to do with it. He who
fights against them will be nearer to Allah than them.
May Allah protect us from such Falsehood, and keep us from among those whom He has
guided to His straight path and kept steadfast upon that path until we meet Him while
upon it. End quote
[Ref: Source: February 14, 2015 in Al-Sirat Al-Mustaqeem, Aqeedah & Tawheed, Islamic
topics, Our Articles & Translations]
The Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said: "A believer was created with
the tendency to forget, but whenever he is reminded, he remembers (i.e., goes back to
the truth)."
[Ref: Silsilah As-Saheehah 3132]
Ibrahim ibn al-Ashàth said: I asked al-Fudayl ibn Iyadh about humbleness (al-tawaadu)
and he said, It is when you submit to the truth and comply no matter who you hear it
from; even if it was from the most ignorant of people, you would be required to accept it
from him.
[Ref: Ibn Àbdil Barr, Jami al-Bayan 1/498]

Ibn al-Qayyim rahimahullah said:
It is mandatory to accept the truth whether it comes from your friend or (comes from
your) enemy, or (from your) beloved or (from) hated one or (from) the righteous one or
the wicked.
[Ref: Ìlaam al-Muwaqqeen]
Ibn Masòod (r.a) is reported to have said:
Whoever comes to you with some truth whether he is young or old, even if he is hated
by you then accept [that truth]. And whoever comes lying to you even if he is beloved
and close then reject it from him.
[Ref: Masawi Al-Akhlaq wa Madhmumiha, No.137 (Abu Bakr Al Kharaaiti D. 327H)]
Imam al-Mizzi rahimahullah said:
And what indicates to the religiosity and trustworthiness of Nuàym [bin Hammad] is his
returning to the truth whenever he was told of his inadvertence and made aware of his
mistake, as he never considered accepting the truth beneath himself because returning
to the truth is better than remaining in falsehood, and the one who remains in falsehood
will increase only in remoteness from the truth
[Ref: 29/471, Tadheeb 'l-Kamal]
End of compilation. May Allah accept this effort and serve it as a source of guidance and
strength for our bretheren for this will truly be a victory and reward I anticipate.

Refuting The Khariji Notion On Alliance With The Kuffar

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Refuting The Khariji Notion On Alliance With The Kuffar

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.

INTRODUCTION & PURPOSE OF THIS COMPILATION ......................................................... 5

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

3. Warning from self-interpretation of Quran and Hadeeth: http://the-

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

25+ TRAITS OF THE KHAWARIJ

1) About this article and what does it contain?

2) DISTINGUISHING TRAITS OF THE KHAWARIJ - ESPECIALLY THE MODERN DAY ONE'S

TRAIT #1: Self-interpretations of Islamic texts

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

TRAIT #11: They Attack In Masaajid And Places Of Worship Of Non-Muslims

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

TRAIT #20: They Do Not Consider Obedience Towards The King/Ruler

4) ANSWERS TO SOME DOUBTS

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

DISCUSSION FROM SALAF & KHALAF ON ALLIANCE OF A MUSLIM

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Tafseer & the Cause of Revelation of Surah Nisa

*Quran surah nisa verse 92+

Under this verse of surah nisa verse 92 {

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Shaykh ul-Islam Imam ibn Qudamah said:

[Ref: Maalim us-Sunnan by the giant Imam al-Khattabi]

[Ref: Takmila Radd al-Mukhtar 1/101]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Shaykh Muhammad ibn Ibraaheem Aal- Ash-Shaykh rahimahullah said:

[Ref: 77/2( "])

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: Al-Umm 6/37 or:

[Ref: Mukhtasar al-Muzni 361]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: al-Bayan lil-`Imrani (11/447); Majmoo` sharh al-Muhaddhab 5/19 shamela]

[Ref: Minhaj as-sunnah (5/116) and Majmoo` al-fatawa (19/221)]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

" :[ Ref: 2/97; no.676. Isnad saheeh]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Among those scholars which Shaykh `Abdullah al-Bukhari mentioned are

See: page 105-108

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

- The narration of Ibrahim an-Nakhai` from Ibn Mas`ood

The fuqaha have said:

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Baab: al-aseeru yadda`il-Islaama Qabla al-Asri wa lahu shaahid

[Ref: nuqat `ala muharrar, as has preceded above]

Imam shawkani rahimahullah has explained this hadeeth saying,

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: nayl ul-Awtar (14/267-268) tahkeeq by Muhammad Subhay hallaq]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: Tabaqat al-Kubra (4/199)]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: ansab al-Ashraf of Baladhuri (1/1/523)]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation

[Ref: al-Ikleel 1/260 Shamela or see its surah 60, verse 1]

Compiled by www.fahmalhadeeth.com | www.facebook.com/thefinalrevelation