The reaction to the terrible Chapel Hill shooting, where three innocent Muslims lost their promising lives, bore another dark shade of tragedy. It is hard to recall a similar incident where so many people from so many different backgrounds were shamelessly united by a common cause of using dead bodies to further their agenda. Whether it was the Muslim world’s typical selectiveness in condemnation, the prominent Muslims in the West manifesting ‘atheismophobia’ or the illustrious atheists exhibiting the same defensiveness that they accuse the Islam apologists of, the aftermath of the Chapel Hill shooting was a massive assortment of hypocrisy.
#MuslimLivesMatter trended in countries where Muslims kill other Muslims for being the ‘wrong kind of Muslim’ or simply ‘not Muslim enough’ every other day
#MuslimLivesMatter trended in countries where Muslims kill other Muslims for being the ‘wrong kind of Muslim’ or simply ‘not Muslim enough’ every other day. Not only did the Muslim world hijack the American hashtag, we castigated and scorned the Western media for treating the act of a non-Muslim killing Muslims just like any other act of murder. Hence, we created enough hullabaloo to create false equivalence between a hate crime – wherein the perpetrator did not cite any ideology or scripture as a motivation – and Islamist terrorism where the obvious influence of religion is echoed all over the world by the terrorists themselves. Not touting an individual crime where the killer did not cite a ‘cause’ behind the act as ‘terrorism’ also perturbed us.
While the reaction of the average Muslim living in our neck of the wood typically reeked of prejudice, it is prominent Muslim figures, quite often the flag-bearers of a moderate and progressive Islam, who took the cake. Reza Aslan, for example, launched his own ‘crusade’ against Richard Dawkins on Twitter, and wrote an entire article for Salon critiquing ‘New Atheism’ and ‘anti-theism’.
Aslan is among the most prominent voices downplaying the role of religion in Islamists conspicuously using religion to justify violence. So for him to start criticising ‘New Atheism’ and tout the negative influence of the likes of Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens over a crime where the only clue to an ideological motivation was the religious identities of the murderer and the victims, meant that he nullified most of his Islamic apologia. For, if Dawkins and Harris share the responsibility of a murder that one of their fans committed (not in their name) surely the blame for Islamists’ violence should also be similarly shared?
While the Muslims were almost ecstatic that a hate crime had been committed where they can mock people of another ideology, Dawkins manifested similar ecstasy when an apparent ‘parking space’ issue was peddled as a cause behind the attack. Visibly defensive about atheism throughout the day of the Chapel Hill shooting, Dawkins relentlessly tweeted about the ‘parking dispute’ when the news first broke.
While blaming atheism, the lack of belief, for the shooting is ridiculous – considering there’s no atheistic scripture to be interpreted (or misinterpreted) to endorse violence and the dearth of crimes committed ‘in the name of atheism’ – it is perfectly rational to discuss the rising anti-Muslim bigotry in the aftermath of the killings. By seemingly highlighting the ‘parking dispute’ – which might have been the immediate cause – as the main reason behind the attack, Dawkins manifested the same denialism that the likes of Noam Chomsky and George Galloway do with their fixation on Western imperialism in the aftermath of Islamist terrorism.
What the likes of Dawkins, Harris – and recently Bill Maher – need to be doing is to readdress the stereotypes that they have inadvertently proliferated about Muslims, instead of being defensive about atheism. For, when you tout Islam as ‘evil’ and in turn anyone holding Islamic beliefs as being dangerous, it is not implausible to see attacks against non-violent Muslims in retaliation to the terrorism in the name of Islam. Ironically, this would be a similar case of ‘self-defence’ and ‘fight for the greater good’ that the religious scriptures peddle.
Even so, while the likes of Dawkins, Harris, and Maher might have spread the stereotype of a monolithic Muslim world, we are the ones who have created and religiously stuck to endorsing the aforementioned stereotype. When most of us believe in and endorse the same Islamic laws as ISIS, al-Qaeda or TTP (i.e killing for blasphemy, apostasy, etc), as has been depicted by multiple surveys, we can’t blame people from other religions – or non-religion – not living within any proximity of the Muslim world for typecasting Muslims as intolerant or violent.
We can’t blame other communities for treating Muslims as a monolith, for there is no concept of a Muslim that is sceptical about the Islamic texts. That all Muslims treat the Islamic scriptures as the infallible, unalterable divine word – hence above reform – is not a stereotype created by the West; that’s how everyone in the Muslim World self-identifies, or is forced to do so. Hence, before using an isolated incident to launch our opportunistic bigotry against other communities, we need to realise and accept that the biggest – albeit not the only – cause behind the anti-Muslim bigotry is our virtually identical treatment of Islam and the religious scriptures.
The hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter trending in Pakistan will not be laughable when we’re as vocal about Islamist violence in our own country, if not more. Peshawar and Lahore blasts have followed the Chapel Hill shooting, and we’re yet to see similar outrage. Instead of perpetuating a sense of victimhood, we need to realise that the biggest reason behind antagonism against Muslims, are we Muslims.
More than 5,000 people attended the funeral of Chapel Hill victims in the US. 30,000 Germans rallied against the anti-Muslim bigotry of PEGIDA in Dresden. The maximum turnout for protests against the Peshawar school attack was 300.
If the West is guilty of ‘Islamophobia’ how should we christen our reluctance to stand up for our own selves, looking at the mirror and finally identifying the elephant in the room?
Hi Kunwar, big fan of your writing and the courage you have demonstrated as a voice for secularism and reform in Pakistan and the ‘Muslim world’. Once again, you hit the nail on the head here with your criticism of the hypocrisy of selective condemnation within the ‘Muslim world’, the opportunistic use of tragedy to criticise atheism (as if it were a motivating worldview) and certain ‘prominent atheists’ as well as any voice (atheist or not) which is more concerned with defensive posturing than the senseless murder of 3 innocent people.
However, while conceding some points on the matter, I would make a few noises of disagreement about your criticism of Dawkins and Maher and in the case of Harris, feel that you’ve lumped him in and in a misrepresented of his clearly (and repeatedly) expressed public views.
I didn’t see the Dawkins tweets you mention but would accept that if what you report was indeed his primary focus, it was overly-defensive and insensitive (personally and politically). I think it would be fair to say that on occasion he has demonstrated a tin-ear for certain situations of this kind but don’t think that characterises him as a person or his actual views.
I would also grant that Maher and Dawkins (and I’m sure I’ve heard Harris do it too a few times as well) have used the terms ‘Muslims’ or ‘Muslim-“word with negative connotation”’ where it could be construed as a monolithic condemnation of Muslims generally as a group of people. However, I would emphasise that on any sort of charitable interpretation, whenever any of the three have done so, this is not what they actually mean – they are critical of Islamic ideology and behaviours resulting from belief in these ideas – and all (especially Harris as I will elaborate on below) have clarified this on public record and decried anti-Muslim bigotry.
While there might be a role for conscious-raising in the use of language with regard to these points, as you have articulately expressed in this and many previous articles, many of the views or actions being criticised are directly sanctioned in scripture and held or supported by either a majority or troublingly-large minority of Muslims and – in these cases (which I would say essentially cover any and all examples by Harris, Dawkins and Maher) it can simply can become ungainly, restrictive and in some instances dishonest to continually speak and write while avoiding using ‘Muslim’ or referring to ‘Muslim-X’ in any sense that could be construed negatively. Where all 3 have been guilty of ‘inadvertently spreading a stereotype of monolithic “Muslim-world”’ it is in criticising the same adherence to doctrinal infallibility, opposition to reform and the harmful outcomes which result from these beliefs which you do when you write:
“We are the ones who have created and religiously stuck to endorsing the aforementioned stereotype. When most of us believe in and endorse the same Islamic laws as ISIS, al-Qaeda or TTP (i.e killing for blasphemy, apostasy, etc), as has been depicted by multiple surveys, we can’t blame people from other religions – or non-religion – not living within any proximity of the Muslim world for typecasting Muslims as intolerant or violent.
We can’t blame other communities for treating Muslims as a monolith, for there is no concept of a Muslim that is sceptical about the Islamic texts. That all Muslims treat the Islamic scriptures as the infallible, unalterable divine word – hence above reform – is not a stereotype created by the West; that’s how everyone in the Muslim World self-identifies, or is forced to do so.”
While Dawkins and Maher do make much of atheism as an identity, Harris is distinctly opposed to this idea ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMa-0Fjn2sU ). And one can grant your criticism of Dawkins in this case is his reaction was as you say, but it must be stressed that there is nothing wrong with addressing criticisms of atheism as a cause for the Chapel Hill murders or making clear that the facts are not known and initial reported motivation was the interpersonal conflict regarding a parking space (as both you in your article and Harris in his podcast [ http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-chapel-hill-murders-and-militant-atheism ] did as asides).
In addition, Harris (who if you can’t tell I am a fan of and whose full body of work I would commend to you most highly), has throughout his career repeatedly emphasised that his criticism of faith-based religion generally is due to his concern about what he considers to be, “bad ideas, held for bad reasons, leading to bad behaviour” and the fact that religious-faith is truly prototypical of this kind of unreason and essentially the only domain where this is actually considered a virtue and criticism is taboo. To the degree that he focuses on Islam it is because of the content of specific doctrines, the extent to which these are believed and acted upon by followers and thus are manifesting as concerns in the world as well as what had been a failure of many to even acknowledge the problem (http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2 ). And as he has continually stressed, those who are suffering most because of this ideology and are Muslims themselves and compassion for these victims should be foremost in our concerns.
Harris is the first to admit that noises he makes are probably not the best tactic to use in order to elicit reform with much of the Muslim world (www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKjcvZoxT9Q ) – though it must be acknowledged that this is because of this kind of criticism of the ideology is largely felt as an attack on Muslim identity, especially from those from without the faith – and on this note he has been engaged with reformers such as Maajid Nawaz (with whom he is writing a book). But to say that he (or the other two for that matter) simply, “tout[s] Islam as ‘evil’ and in turn anyone holding Islamic beliefs as being dangerous” is misleading – and devalues what in my opinion is one of the most vocal and public advocates for reform within Islam.
God bless you!
STATUSES OF KAFIRS IN FRONT OF MUSLIMS, JIZYAH, & AHL AL-KITAB
As-Salamu ‘Alaikum
In order to properly refute the scholars of duniya who are the best friends of kafirs and enemies of Islam and Muslims but claim to be ‘Ash’ari’, ‘Sunni’ and ‘Sufi’ scholars, it is necessary for common Muslims to properly acquaint themselves with some points pertaining to usool of Islamic fiqh (foundational principles).
Knowing some key usooli points is what will help Muslims see the misguided furoo’ (the derived rulings) that these kafirs pretending to be Muslims propagate in order to serve their kafir masters.
The way these scholars of duniya work is through what one would call ‘Islamic fallacies’ where they issue a furoo’iy ruling that is deliberately based on faulty and twisted usool or at times non-existent usool. (Translation of a Persian taunt at such people, “Your usool are damaged, and your furoo’ are shaky at best”)
Since these kafirs pretending to be Muslims work only and only to uplift kufr and the kuffaar, and to try and downplay the honor and pride of Islam and Muslims, they twist and abuse many principles of Islam and/or take them out of context, to issue rulings that cause ordinary Muslims to diminish in their antipathy towards kufr and kuffaar and give up on their Muslim pride.
These few pointers shall in sha Allah, help many common Muslims locate right away – the debauchery of the scholars of duniya who pretend to be ‘Sunni’ and ‘Ash’ari’ and ‘Sufi’, but in reality are filthy munaafiqiin and ugly zanaadiq.
Why/how?
Because the rulings regarding Muslim-kafir interaction are dependent on the status of the kafir. It is simply not enough to say,
“Muslims are allowed to [action x] with kafirs” or “Muslims should [action y] with kafirs.”
It is imperative that the status of the kafir being discussed be mentioned; otherwise the one issuing the ruling is either an ignoramus or a munaafiq playing with the rules of the noble Shari’ah.
As an example, the scholars of duniya almost always state that “Muslims are allowed to marry Christian /Jew women” or that “Muslims are allowed to give charity to kafirs” but they almost never state that charities that are not zakat are ONLY allowed for DHIMMIS (zakat is NOT allowed even for dhimmis), and NOT allowed for harbiys – and that the most relied upon opinion of the bulk majority of scholars is that marriage of a Muslim man to a Jew or Christian woman is allowed ONLY if she is a dhimmiyah, and then too, with certain conditions. The relied upon and dominant opinion is that Muslim men are NOT allowed to marry harbiyyaat Christian and Jew women.
Let us start.
1 – Statuses of kafirs in front of Muslims
There are ONLY 4 statuses that kafirs have in front of Muslims. These statuses are common to ALL the madhhabs of the Ahlus Sunnah and there is NO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION on it.
The definitions can be found in any primary texts of fiqh of ANY madhhab. I have taken these Arabic fiqh definitions from the Kuwaiti Ministry of Religious Affairs’ Encyclopedia of Fiqh (http://www.islam.gov.kw). They are highlighted in green.
It should be noted that these are social statuses and they even apply on men, women, elderly and children alike.
a – أهل الذمة : أهل الذمة هم الكفار الذين أقروا في دار الإسلام على كفرهم بالتزام الجزية ونفوذ أحكام الإسلام فيهم
ahl al-dhimmah : The ahl al-dhimmah (dhimmis) are the kuffaar who are accepted to live in a Dar Al-Islam (a Muslim state) maintaining their kufr – WITH the obligation to pay the jizyah and the domination of the commands of Islam [i.e., the Shari’ah – ruling] upon them.
A dhimmi’s life and property is protected by the Muslim state. Muslims are not allowed to hurt them or their property, it is HARAM & SINFUL. Muslim men can marry Christian and Jew dhimmi women.
However, it should also be noted that it is ALSO HARAM & KUFR to honor dhimmis or give them the same treatment one offers one’s Muslim brothers and sisters. It is HARAM to offer them the Islamic salam or be the first to initiate a greeting to them to honor them. It is HARAM to bear close affinities & friendships to them. It is HARAM to offer them employment in prestigious positions or to hire them in a position above Muslims. It is HARAM to share secrets with them or hire them in the state’s administrative positions. These are the rulings of ALL MADHHABS. Any book of fiqh from ANY madhhab can be seen.
Dhimmi status is as good as a kafir’s status gets in front of Muslims. While a dhimmi is granted safety, he is also humiliated by being charged jizyah, which he has to pay arriving on foot to the revenue officer, in person, without sending a representative and with his own hands. It can only be accorded if they pay the jizyah.
A person CAN NOT be called a dhimmi or be treated like a dhimmi if he doesn’t pay the jizyah.
There are NO dhimmis in these times. After the colonial era in Muslim lands, as Muslim nations got back on their feet, they missed out on implementing the jizyah.
The jizyah is FARDZ to be implemented as it is a direct command from Allah Himself in the Quran. ALL Muslims MUST educate their scholars and leaders to help in the implementation of the jizyah. In times of trials, the Muslims MUST help their scholars and leaders and the best help is educating them regarding the commands of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
Allah has mandated the jizyah to humiliate the kufr and the ahl al-kufr. No amount of sugar-coating by the munaafiq scholars of duniya will delete the humiliation of the kuffaar that Allah has mandated directly in the Quran.
Some kafirs who pretend to be Muslim scholars are very happy that the jizyah is not charged now and they say that Imam Mahdi along with Sayyidina ‘Eisa, ‘ala nabiyyina wa ‘alaihimus salam, will abolish the jizyah. They gleefully tell this to their kafir masters. It is TRUE that Sayyidina ‘Eisa will abolish the jizyah acting upon the command by our Master RasulAllah for that time, but in that time, the severity of the kuffaar against the Muslims will be at a peak and Islam will also be at its harshest against them, and the abolishing of the jizyah will be based on:
‘Become Muslim or perish! Even accepting to pay the jizyah will not save you now!’
It will NOT be done to honor kafirs or consider them equal to Muslims, like these munaafiqiin imply.
————
b – المستأمنون : المستأمن في الأصل : الطالب للأمان ، وهو الكافر يدخل دار الإسلام بأمان ، أو المسلم إذا دخل دار الكفار بأمان
Mustamanoon [plural of mustaman]: A mustaman in reality is a seeker of safety [from war], and he is a kafir who enters Muslim land in safety [from war as granted by the head of Muslim state]; or he can be a Muslim who enters a kafir state in safety.
A mustaman is a kafir from a kafir state, who enters a Muslim state getting an assurance of safety for his life and property from the Muslim ruler. Like dhimmis, it is not allowed to hurt a mustaman.
The kafir citizens of Muslim states in these times can only be called mustaman. They can’t be called dhimmis because the jizyah is not charged anywhere in the world.
As the definition states, a Muslim citizen of an Islamic state visiting a kafir land, can also be called mustaman relative to the kuffaar of that land.
————
c – أهل العهد : هم الذين صالحهم إمام المسلمين على إنهاء الحرب مدة معلومة لمصلحة يراها
ahl al-’ahd : They are the people with whom the Imam [i.e., ruler] of the Muslims has resolved to end combat hostilities for a known period, for any strategic reasons he observes.
As the definition states, a Muslim ruler can suspend war with kafir states for a set period of time and enter into treaties with them, for strategic reason that are of benefit to Islam. The kafirs of these states are called mu’ahad or ahl al-’ahd. Muslims should honor the contract for as long as it lasts. They only need to honor the contract to the extent of its terms.
It should however be noted, that any contract, treaty, or agreement, that a Muslim state enters into, they must not contain any clauses or conditions contrary to Islam or else they in their entirety, or those parts will be null and void (depending on what the state qaadzi rules). Therefore, it is NOT necessary on any Muslim state to honor any idiotic treaty or convention which asks them to lift the jizyah or legalize sins like homosexuality or abolish the Islamic capital punishments and so on. Allah’s law stands till the day of judgment and if a Muslim leader signed any such idiotic treaty, he SHOULD break away from it.
The kafir citizens of western nations in these times can ONLY be considered ahl al-’ahd at best and the citizenship/visas of such states would be the contracts/treaties. Muslim citizens of those states should not violate such contracts as long as they are allowed to practice Islam freely in those states.
————
d – أهل الحرب أو الحربيون : هم غير المسلمين الذين لم يدخلوا في عقد الذمة ، ولا يتمتعون بأمان المسلمين ولا عهدهم
ahl al-harb or harbiyyoon [harbiyyoon is plural of harbiy]: They are those non Muslims who DO NOT enter the treaty of dhimmah (protection) and they do not enjoy any safety or treaties from Muslims [from being warred against].
The harbiy status even applies on women, children and elderly, even though in the event of an actual war, it is forbidden to kill them.
(The Arabic definitions above, highlighted in green, are taken from the Encyclopedia of Islamic Fiqh, published by Kuwait’s Ministry of Islamic Affairs)
————
Any elementary servant of fiqh, of any madhhab, knows that harbiy is the flip-side of dhimmi, that is, if a person is not a dhimmi, he is a harbiy.
Even the mustamanoon and the ahl al-’ahd are [de facto] harbiyyoon, BUT they are not harbiy bil f’il (حربي بالفعل), or to translate in everyday English, they are NOT harbiy per se, that is, they are not warring actively in the battleground,
BUT ideologically they harbor antagonism to Islam. They struggle against Islam and seek to dominate over it.
Just consider these few points:
They support the illegitimate state of Israel.
They support their leaders in wars against Muslims.
Even if they oppose wars against Muslims, they still show antagonism to Islamic ideology, by promoting sin & vice that come under the umbrella of secular capitalistic democracies, AND they also promote antagonism and harshness against Islam, Quran, our beloved Prophet , all in the name of ‘freedom of speech’, etc. The ostentatious kafir ‘human rights’ and ‘environmental’ organizations like Amnesty, who claim to be the propagators of ‘peace’ and ‘goodwill’ are in fact particularly evil and nothing but symbolisms of idiocy and moral vanity, and open and severe enemies of Islam. For example, they openly speak ill of Islamic laws and the Shari’ah punishments of qisaas and hudood, like for adultery, murder, theft, etc. Muslims should note that talking ill of the Shari’ah or denying its explicit rules, commandments, punishments etc. makes one a kafir just like these filthy satanists, la’anahumullah.
إِن تَمْسَسْكُمْ حَسَنَةٌ تَسُؤْهُمْ وَإِن تُصِبْكُمْ سَيِّئَةٌ يَفْرَحُواْ بِهَا
Translation of meaning: If some good meets you, it grieves them, and if some ill fortune meets you, they rejoice in it… [Holy Quran 3:120]
إِن تُصِبْكَ حَسَنَةٌ تَسُؤْهُمْ
Translation of meaning: If some good meets you [O beloved Prophet], it grieves them… Holy Quran 9:50
Their grief shows should Islam/Muslim attain any success, how they do not wish for Muslim states to acquire certain arms, and also at the same time their beaming happiness shows and the venom in their hearts comes to surface whenever a misfortune strikes Muslims. It is inherently impossible for a kafir to be a well-wisher of Islam.
Islam and kufr are two opposites and all of kufr is one entity as our scholars have taught us. Islam and kufr simply CAN’T be equals. The antagonism against Islam rising in western nations is proof that these two opposing ideologies can’t ever be on a level field. Opposing ideologies inherently seek to dominate and with Islam and kufr, it will always be a case of who is dominating and who is dominated. Remember that ALL of kufr is ONE nation, it includes all their religious and political ideologies.
Anyone who considers these harbiy kafirs as friends of Islam/Muslims is a deluded ignoramus at best or a munaafiq at worst. The munaafiq scholars of duniya are working their hardest and doing their level best to make sure that Muslims accept the domination of the kufr and kuffaar above Islam and Muslims and let this post-colonialist, camouflaged colonialism carry on. They shall be disgraced in this life and in the hereafter in sha Allah.
When the secular capitalists want the empire of secular capitalism to dominate the planet and be accepted as the dominant ideology, Muslims must have shame and they too must want ISLAM to dominate the planet, and they must see the present day kuffaar as they are – harbiyyoon. Being mustaman or mu’ahad doesn’t take away from their core harbiy essence, be it by Islamic fiqh or by practical ground realities.
And in any case, as I have stated and anyone is welcome to check any book of fiqh, the best treatment a kafir can be given is dhimmi, and even dhimmi is not an honorable status in Islam. ‘Protected’ and ‘honored’ are two very different things.
These munaafiqin pretending to be scholars of Islam simply can’t take the dishonor of the kuffaar away, even if they sold their souls. Islam in itself is something that dishonors and disgraces kufr. They are working very hard to forge affinities and friendships with the kuffaar, calling on Muslims to honor their kafir masters. It is haram for Muslims to just befriend dhimmis and honor them. What can we say about these harbiyyoon! In sha Allah, they shall never achieve their aim of getting kufr to dominate over Islam.
2 – The verse of jizyah
To refresh the memory of the scholars of duniya, here is the verse of the jizyah. The jizyah is fardz and it is not abrogated. It is commanded by Allah, and stays until Imam Mahdi arrives. They couldn’t brush away the topic of jizyah and the Muslim history of charging jizyah even if they tried. They should perhaps read up on the biography of Sayyidina ‘Umar, radzi Allahu ‘anhu and how he implemented jizya and how ALL 4 madhhabs implemented it modeling after him, until it was finally not implemented in the modern Muslim states.
Indeed these kafirs pretending to be Muslim scholars are humiliated in the duniya and the hereafter.
قَاتِلُواْ الَّذِينَ لاَ يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلاَ بِالْيَوْمِ الآخِرِ وَلاَ يُحَرِّمُونَ مَا حَرَّمَ اللّهُ وَرَسُولُهُ وَلاَ يَدِينُونَ دِينَ الْحَقِّ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُواْ الْكِتَابَ حَتَّى يُعْطُواْ الْجِزْيَةَ عَن يَدٍ وَهُمْ صَاغِرُونَ
Translation of meaning: War [against] the people who do not believe in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that as forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and [those that] take not as their religion the religion of truth (Islam) from those who have been given a book* – until they pay the jizya with their hands, and they’re humiliated**. [Holy Quran 9:29]
* Those who do not believe in Allah refers to the people who do not believe in Him as He has commanded to believe in Him, with his Self & Attributes as well as they do not believe in ALL His prophets. This includes all pagans, atheists, etc., and as the verse says, even includes people of the book, since they do not accept Prophet Muhammad, sal Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam, as Allah’s Messenger, plus not to mention they do not even believe in Allah and His Self & Attributes as they should, the jews being anthropomorphists engaged in tajseem and tashbeeh, some of them even mushrikeen who call ‘Uzair, ‘alaihis salam, as Allah’s son (wal ‘iyadhu billah); and the Christians being blatant polytheists with their beliefs in the trinity and attributing Allah with a son, subhanahu ‘amma yushrikoon.
** Jizya is the tribute taken from the people of the book and all other kafirs engaged in a protection treaty with the Muslim state. Fiqh rulings –
1. This jizya is taken in cash and there is no credit facility in it.
2. The one who pays jizya HAS TO appear personally before the revenue officers of the Islamic state and pay the jizya.
3. He has to come walking and stand up when he pays it.
4. All kafirs including the people of the book have to pay the jizya except the mushriks of the Arabian peninsula as jizya from them is not accepted.
5. Jizya is lifted from those who embrace Islam. | The hikmah of imposing the jizya is that the kuffaar be given time to explore the beauty of Islam and its infallible proofs attesting its truthfulness and thus they too have an opportunity to uplift their sorry states and rise to the opportunity to become Muslim.
3 – The ahl al-kitab, the Christians and Jews, are kafirs without doubt
In ALL 4 MADHHABS of the Ahlus Sunnah, it is mandatory to charge jizyah to the ahl al-kitab citizens, the christians and jews – of the Muslim state.
Any minor student of fiqh knows that jizyah is not charged to Muslims, but only to kafirs and the jizyah is lifted from a person as soon as he embraces Islam.
Does not then the charging of the jizyah to ahl al-kitab (Christians and Jews) by all Sunni madhhabs and Muslim states throughout the history of Islam, establish that they are kafirs? They are indeed and there are plentiful direct & primary proofs for this right from Quran and hadiith. There is absolutely NO difference of opinion on this between ANY scholars of Islam, past or present. The munaafiq scholars of duniya are working very hard to propagate that Christians and Jews are not kafirs.
To those zanaadiq who say that Islam hasn’t reached every nook and cranny of the West and therefore, their kafir citizens can’t be called kafirs, we say: This is the age in which information spreads at lightning speeds. If the kafirs of the kafir nations were called kuffaar right in the times of sahaba and tabi’een, when information took ages to travel, then this excuse of ‘but Islam hasn’t reached all the country towns of the west’ for their kafir brothers and sisters holds absolutely no water.
Syncretism & perennialism that equate Islam and kufr are nothing but pure apostasy from Islam, and they have NOTHING to do with the ways of the lions of the Ahlus Sunah, the people of Ash’ari and Maturidi ‘aqaid and the 4 madhhabs of the Ahlus Sunnah and one of the noble Sufi paths – and we seek Allah’s refuge from such.
Let these kafirs see the implementation of the jizyah by the noble Ash’ari & Maturidi rulers of Islam who were also followers of Islamic tasawwuf of the noble turuq like Naqshbandi, Cheshti, Qadiri, Shadhili & so on. Let them study the no-compromise-on-Islam politics and the wars by the lions of tasawwuf who grandly uplifted Islam and the ummah. Indeed, Allah caused Islam to dominate far and wide through the nobles of tasawwuf who were also the roaring lions of warfare, the bearers of the flag of Islam and Muslim pride.
We ask Allah to destroy these syncretist munaafiqiin and bless us yet once again with such noble REAL Sufis.
And Allah alone grants success.
Verse 8 of Surah Al-Mumtahinah is a verse that hypocrites pretending to be Muslim scholars often cite to justify their loving relationships with their kafir masters and they have misled scores of innocent Muslims by their debauchery.
Our Master Rasulullah has said that he fears for his ummah the most from the hypocrites who argue using the Quran giving wrong interpretations and misguiding people.
أَنَّ أَخْوَفَ مَا أَخَافُ عَلَيْكُمْ ثَلَاثٌ : جِدَالُ مُنَافِقٍ بِالْقُرْآنِ ، وَزَلَّةُ عَالِمٍ ، وَدُنْيَا تَقْطَعُ أَعْنَاقَكُمْ
The greatest fear that I have for you are three: The argumentation of a hypocrite using the Quran, the blunder of a scholar, and duniya cutting your necks.
[Hadiith from Dar Qutniy, and other compilations]
These are the verses 8 & 9 of Surah Al-Mumtahinah
لَّا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ لَمْ يُقَاتِلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَلَمْ يُخْرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمْ وَتُقْسِطُوا إِلَيْهِمْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُقْسِطِينَ
Translation of meaning: Allah does not forbid you from those [infidels] who do not fight you in religion and do not expel you from your homes that you treat them kindly and be upright towards them; for indeed the upright are dear to Allah. [Holy Quran 60:8]
إِنَّمَا يَنْهَاكُمُ اللَّهُ عَنِ الَّذِينَ قَاتَلُوكُمْ فِي الدِّينِ وَأَخْرَجُوكُم مِّن دِيَارِكُمْ وَظَاهَرُوا عَلَىٰ إِخْرَاجِكُمْ أَن تَوَلَّوْهُمْ ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ
Translation of meaning: Allah only forbids you from those [infidels] who fight you in religion and expel you from your homes or aid in expelling you, that you bear affinities with them; and whoever holds friendships with them then they are transgressors. [Holy Quran 60:9]
First we shall present a summary case of the interpretational rulings relating to the verse, then as evidence, present the tafsiirs for them, from classical exegetes, as well as rulings of jurists.
—————————————————————————-
THE SUMMARY CASE:
(1) Justice is not abrogated. A Muslim must uphold justice in all dealings and be honorable with any Shari’ah-permitted contracts he enters into, be it with Muslims or kafirs.
(2 a) Kind treatment and NON-obligatory charities are permitted from Muslims towards dhimmis, the kafir citizens of a Muslim state who dutifully bow their heads and pay the jizyah. There are no dhimmies in these times.
(2 b) Kind treatment of harbiy kafirs is abrogated. Any kafir who is not a dhimmi is a harbiy.
(3) Friendships and affinities are forbidden towards ALL kafirs, whether dhimmi or harbiy.
(4) There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between
– upholding justice and dealing with people evenhandedly;
– mere gentle treatment; and
– friendships and affinities
—————————————————————————-
Tafsiir Al-Jalalayn (Imams Jalaluddin Al-Mahalli and Jalaluddin as-Suyuti)
تفسير- { لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم } من الكفار { في الدين ولم يخرجوكم من دياركم أن تبروهم } بدل اشتمال من الذين { وتقسطوا } تقضوا { إليهم } بالقسط أي بالعدل وهذا قبل الأمر بجهادهم { إن الله يحب المقسطين } العادلين
تفسير الجلالين
{Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you} [i.e.,] from the kuffaar {in religion and do not expel you from your homes that you treat them kindly} ‘treat them kindly’ is a replacement to the inclusion of ‘those’ [mentioned in the starting] {and be upright} [i.e.,] spend {towards them} [i.e.,] with fairness, that is with justice, and this is before the command to go to jihad with them {for indeed, the upright are dear to Allah} [i.e.,] the just.
—————————————————————————-
Zaad Al-Masiir of Imam ‘Abd Ar-Rahman bin ‘Ali bin Muhammad Al-Jawziy:
قوله تعالى لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم في الدين اختلفوا فيمن نزلت على خمسة أقوال
أحدها أنها في أسماء بنت أبي بكر وذلك أن أمها قتيلة بنت عبد العزى قدمت عليها المدينة بهدايا فلم تقبل هداياها ولم تدخلها منزلها فسألت لها عائشة رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم فنزلت هذه الآية فأمرها رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم أن تدخلها منزلها وتقبل هديتها وتكرمها وتحسن إليها قاله عبد الله بن الزبير
والثاني أنها نزلت في خزاعة وبني مدلج وكانوا صالحوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم على أن لا يقاتلوه ولا يعينوا عليه أحدا قاله ابن عباس وروي عن الحسن البصري أنها نزلت في خزاعة وبني الحارث بن عبد مناف وكان بينهم وبين رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عهد فداموا على الوفاء به
والثالث نزلت في قوم من بني هاشم منهم العباس قاله عطية العوفي ومرة
والرابع أنها عامة في جميع الكفار وهي منسوخة بقوله تعالى فاقتلوا المشركين حيث وجدتموهم التوبة (5) قاله قتادة
والخامس نزلت في النساء والصبيان حكاه الزجاج
قال المفسرون وهذه الآية رخصة في صلة الذين لم ينصبوا الحرب للمسلمين وجواز برهم وإن كانت الموالاة منقطعة منهم
قوله تعالى ولم يخرجوكم من دياركم أي من مكة أن تبروهم وتقسطوا إليهم أي تعاملوهم بالعدل فيما بينكم وبينهم
زاد المسير في علم التفسير
The Almighty’s saying “Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you”, there are five different sayings [i.e. opinions of sahaba / tabi’een] regarding its revelation:
The first of them is in regards to Asma bint Abu Bakr, and this is for when her mother qutaylah bint ‘abd-‘uzza came to her in Madinah with gifts, and she did not accept her [the mother’s] gifts and did not let her into her house; then ‘Aisha, radzi Allahu ‘anha, asked the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, regarding her [Asma], and this verse was revealed, and the Messenger of Allah, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, commanded her [Asma] to let her [the mother] in her home and accept her gifts and to be hospitable and gentle to her. ‘Abd-Allah bin Zubayr says this.
The second is that it was revealed in relation to khuza’ah and bani midlaj (two tribes) and they had a treaty with Rasul-Allah, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, that they shall not war against the Prophet or aid others against him; and this is said by Ibn ‘Abbas. And it is narrated by Hasan Al-Basri that it was revealed in relation to khuza’ah and bani al-harith bin ‘abd-manaf, and there was a pact between them and Rasul-Allah, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, and they continued complying with it.
The third: it was revealed in regards to a people from Bani Hashim, Al-Abbas was from them. This is said by ‘Atiyyah Al-‘Aufi and Murrah.
The fourth is that it is general in regards to all kafirs and it is abrogated by The Almighty’s saying
“Then slay the idolaters wherever you find them” [At-Taubah, verse 5].
his is said by Qatadah.
The fifth: it was revealed in relation to women and children. This is relayed by Az-Zujaj.
The exegetes have said that this verse is a dispensation towards those relations who are not engaged in war with Muslims, and a permission to be kind/charitable towards them even though friendships/affinities are forbidden from them [i.e., it is permitted to be kind towards them without treating them at par to one’s Muslim brothers and sisters IF they are dhimmis].
The Almighty’s saying “and do not expel you from your homes” means from Makkah “that you treat them kindly and be upright towards them” means that you deal with each other with justice.
—————————————————————————-
At-Tafsiir Al-Kabiir Mafatiih Al-Ghayb of Imam Fakhr Ad-Diin Ar-Razi
اختلفوا في المراد من {الذين لم يقاتلوكم} فالأكثرون على أنهم أهل العهد الذين عاهدوا رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على ترك القتال، والمظاهرة في العداوة، وهم خزاعة كانوا عاهدوا الرسول على أن لا يقاتلوه ولا يخرجوه، فأمر الرسول عليه السلام بالبر والوفاء إلى مدة أجلهم، وهذا قول ابن عباس والمقاتلين والكلبي، وقال مجاهد: الذين آمنوا بمكة ولم يهاجروا، وقيل: هم النساء والصبيان، وعن عبد الله بن الزبير: أنها نزلت في أسماء بنت أبي بكر قدمت أمها فتيلة عليها وهي مشركة بهدايا، فلم تقبلها ولم تأذن لها بالدخول، فأمرها النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم أن تدخلها وتقبل منها وتكرمها وتحسن إليها، وعن ابن عباس: أنهم قوم من بني هاشم منهم العباس أخرجوا يوم بدر كرها، وعن الحسن: أن المسلمين استأمروا رسول الله في أقربائهم من المشركين أن يصلوهم، فأنزل الله تعالى هذه الآية، وقيل الآية في المشركين، وقال قتادة نسختها آية القتال.
وقوله: {أن تبروهم} بدل من {الذين لم يقاتلوكم} وكذلك {أن تولوهم} بدل من {الذين قاتلوكم} والمعنى: لا ينهاكم عن مبرة هؤلاء، وإنما ينهاكم عن تولي هؤلاء، وهذا رحمة لهم لشدتهم في العداوة، وقال أهل التأويل: هذه الآية تدل على جواز البر بين المشركين والمسلمين، وإن كانت الموالاة منقطعة، وقوله تعالى: {وتقسطوا إليهم} قال ابن عباس يريد بالصلة وغيرها {إن الله يحب المقسطين} يريد أهل البر والتواصل، وقال مقاتل: أن توفوا لهم بعهدهم وتعدلوا، ثم ذكر من الذين ينهاهم عن صلتهم فقال: {إنما ينهاكم الله عن الذين قاتلوكم فى الدين} {أن تولوهم} وفيه لطيفة: وهي أنه يؤكد قوله تعالى: {لا ينهاكم الله عن الذين لم يقاتلوكم} تفسير الكبير
التفسير الكبير – مفاتيح الغيب
There is a difference of opinion on who {those who do not fight you} pertains to; the bulk majority [people of knowledge] are upon [the understanding that] it refers to the people who the Prophet of Allah, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, took a covenant with in regards to ceasing of wars, not aiding the enemy [of Muslims], and they are the people of khuza’ah (a tribe), they entered into a covenant with the Messenger of Allah that they will not war against him nor expel [Muslims from Makkah]; and the Messenger, ‘alaihis salam, was commanded to treat them gently and honor the covenant until it was due, and this is the saying of Ibn ‘Abbas and the two Muqatils [Muqatil bin Hayyan and Muqatil bin Sulayman] and Kalbi. And Mujahid said:
The people who believed [i.e., Muslims] in Makkah but did not migrate [to Madinah]. And it is [also] said: It refers to women and children. And ‘Abd-Allah bin Zubayr narrates that it was revealed in regards to Asma bint Abi Bakr, her mother qutaylah who was an idolater, came with some gifts to visit her, and she did not let her in nor accepted her gifts. So the Prophet, sal Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam, commanded her to let her [the mother] in, and accept her gifts, and to be hospitable to her. It is also narrated from Ibn ‘Abbas: They are a people from Bani Hashim whom ‘Abbas forcibly expelled on the day of Badr. And it is reported on the authority of Hasan: [Some] Muslims sought the Messenger of Allah to command regarding [how to deal with] their idolater relatives who came to them. And Allah revealed this verse. And it is said this verse is in relation to the idolaters. And Qatadah said the verse of war abrogated it.
And His saying {that you treat them kindly} is substituted to the inclusion of [what is mentioned in the starting as] {those who do not fight you} and likewise {that you bear affinities with them} is substituted to the inclusion of {those who fight you} and the meaning is: You are not forbidden from kindness towards them, but you are forbidden from friendships/affinities towards them, and this is a mercy unto them as the enmity to them is very staunch. And the people of interpretation have said:
This verse is a evidence for evenhanded coexistence between Muslims and infidels, despite affinities/friendships being forbidden. And The Almighty’s saying {And be upright towards them} Ibn ‘Abbas said it is regarding [familial] relations and so on; {for indeed, the upright are dear to Allah} is in regards to the people of kindness and generosity.
And Muqatil said:
That you honor your contracts with them and be just with them. Then He [Allah] mentioned the people with whom relationships are forbidden, for He said {Verily, Allah forbids you from those who fight you in religion} {that you bear affinities with them} and there is a subtlety in it: and that is that it strengthens His Saying {Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you}.
—————————————————————————-
The Maliki jurist Qadhi Abu Bakr Ibn Al-‘Arabi says in his Ahkam Al-Quran:
قوله تعالى : { وتقسطوا إليهم } أي تعطوهم قسطا من أموالكم [ على وجه الصلة ] ، وليس يريد به من العدل ; فإن العدل واجب فيمن قاتل وفيمن لم يقاتل
استدل به بعض من تعقد عليه الخناصر على وجوب نفقة الابن المسلم على أبيه الكافر ، وهذه وهلة عظيمة ; فإن الإذن في الشيء أو ترك النهي عنه لا يدل على وجوبه ، إنما يعطيك الإباحة خاصة . وقد بينا أن إسماعيل بن إسحاق القاضي دخل عليه ذمي فأكرمه ، فوجد عليه الحاضرون ، فتلا هذه الآية عليهم
أحكام القرآن لابن العربي
The Almighty’s saying: {And be upright towards them} means giving them a portion from your wealth [on the grounds of relationships], and it does not imply justice; as justice is obligatory regardless if they are at war or not at war.
Some people have considered it as significant evidence on the obligation for a Muslim son to provide financial/material support to a kafir father [or parents]; and this is a big worry; for the mere permission to do something or lifting up the prohibition of it does NOT imply an obligation. It does not endorse anything other than A MERE PERMISSION. And we have made clear regarding Isma’iil bin Is-haq, the qadzi; a dhimmi came to him and he [Isma’iil] was hospitable to him [the dhimmi]; and the other [Muslim] people present found it disturbing; so he [Isma’iil] read this verse to them.
This tafsiir is focused on the Maliki usul of fiqh and the rulings extracted from the Quran.
—————————————————————————-
At-Tafseeraat Al-Ahmadiyyah[1] fi Bayan Al-Aayaat Ash-Shar’iyyah of Shaykh Ahmad As-Siddiiqiy (popularly known as Mulla Jiiwan)
والحاصل ان الاية الاولی ان کانت فی الذمی والثانية فی الحربی کما هوا لظاهر وعليه الاكثرون کان دالا علی جواز الاحسان الی الذمی دون الحربی، ولهذ اتمسك صاحب الهداية فی باب الوصية ان الوصية للذمی جائزة دون الحربی لانه نوع احسان و لهذا المعنی قال فی باب الزكوٰة ان الصدقة النافلة يجوز اعطاءها للذمی دون الحربی لانا ما نهينا عن البر في حقهم بخلاف الزكوة لانها لا يجوز الا لمسلم لحديث معاذ خذها من اغنيائهم وردها الى فقراءهم
التفسيرات الأحمدية في بيان الآيات الشرعية
The conclusion is that the first verse [verse 60:8] is in relation to the dhimmi and the second one [verse 60:9] is in relation to the harbiy, as this is what is apparent and upon this [ruling] are the bulk majority [of classical scholars][2], the verses are evidence that kind treatment of a dhimmi [kafir] is permitted as opposed to a harbiy [kafir]. Due to this, the author of Hidaya took the position in the book on bequeathing that bequeathing to a dhimmi is permitted as opposed to a harbiy as this is a form of kind treatment and due to this meaning, he said in the book on zakat that voluntary charities are permitted to be given to a dhimmi and not to a harbiy as we are not forbidden from [voluntary] charity to them as opposed to zakat because that is not permitted to be given to anyone except Muslim due to the hadiith of Mu’adh ‘take it from their rich and give it to their poor’.
[1] Please do not be confused into thinking that this has any relation to the qadianis who like to call themselves as ‘ahmadiyyah muslims’ or ‘the ahmadiyyah sect’. Those people are devil-worshipers who have nothing to do with Islam or Muslims. The tafsiir quoted is of Shaykh Ahmad As-Siddiiqiy, a legendary and world famous Hanafi jurist from the Indian subcontinent, who passed into Allah’s Mercy in the year 1130 Hijri. The tafsiir is focused on the foundational principles of fiqh and the fiqh rulings extracted from the Quran. The first page of the tafsiir published in Kazan, Russia in 1904, and the relevant pages containing the verses and their exegeses are attached below.
[2] As we have seen from the Maliki rulings presented above, this is indeed the case. The Shafi’iy and Hanbali madhhab are no different.
Shaykh Ahmad has very concisely and beautifully summed up the rulings extracted from these two verses.