The following text is taken from a discussion, between myself and another brother, on a Muslim Internet forum, and deals with Aqd Al Amaan - the covenant of security - which Muslims may, or may not, have with the kuffar while those Muslims reside or live in the lands of the kuffar. [See Footnote (1) below.]

Regarding this important topic, the questions that need to be asked and answered are: what is the exact nature of the covenant that we may have with the kuffar if we reside or enter the lands of the kuffar, and what are the conditions that nullify or may nullify this covenant?

It has been claimed, by some Muslims, that there exists what they call an "implicit" covenant which is made between a Muslim and the kuffar (or, more especially, with the kaffir authorities) when a Muslim obtains a Visa to enter or reside in the lands of the kuffar. Some other Muslims, myself included, incline toward the view that this is mistaken - and that for there to be a covenant, an agreement in the Shariah sense, there must be a verbal or written agreement between individuals. That is, that the conditions, and terms, are known to both parties - or at least they have agreed something, in person.

In addition, it has been claimed that those Muslims residing in the lands of the kuffar have an implicit covenant with the kuffar by virtue of the fact that the kuffar (or, more especially, the kaffir authorities) allow Muslims the so-called "freedom" and the "protection" accorded to kaffir citizens. Again,  some other Muslims, myself included, incline toward the view that this is mistaken. I, in particular, take exception to the use of kaffir terms such as "freedom" - which terms I consider are meaningless for a Muslim, and which terms are kaffir names for their Tawagheet. (See, for example, The Revival of Aql and The Kaffir Error of Freedom.)

However, there is no dispute that if we Muslims have a covenant, it must be honoured, for there are Ahadith which stress the importance of honouring a covenant, such as Abu Dawud (4423) and as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala says:

"You who believe, honour your covenants." 5: 1 Interpretation of Meaning

"Allah loves those who are honourable in their duty: therefore honour your obligations with those of the Mushrikeen with whom you have a treaty - provided they have not supported anyone against you nor themselves have violated it." 9:4 Interpretation of Meaning

"And there shall be no blame for those who take revenge after they have suffered injustice. The way (of blame) is only for those rebellious ones who oppress others and who insolently walk on the earth: for these there will be a painful torment indeed." 42: 41-42 Interpretation of Meaning

"Allah does not forbid you from treating honourably those who do not act against you because of your Deen, or who have not driven you from your dwellings, for Allah loves those who act with honour. But Allah forbids you from treating with respect, or befriending, those who act against you because of your Deen, or have driven you from your dwellings or aided others to do this - for those of you who do this are without honour." 60: 8-9 Interpretation of Meaning

"It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi's blood...but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant." (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

"The first obligation after Eeman is the repulsion of the enemy who demeans and insults our Way of Life and who interferes in our affairs." (Refer to Al Ikhtiyaraat Al Fuqaha, and Fatawa Kubra 4, 608)

"If you expect dishonesty from any people, throw back their covenant at them, for Allah dislikes dishonesty." 8: 58 Interpretation of Meaning

Extracts From A Debate Regarding the Covenant of Security

QUOTE

the fact is that the Muslims living in the UK are generally in a state of security. Those who do not have that security have no covenant but that does not affect the individual covenant of the rest of the Muslims.

(Abdul-Aziz reply:) Assalam Alaikum

Are we really living in a state of security? We live in a condition of surveillance, where our movements, our communications, are monitored, and where we have to be careful what we do, say or write lest we attract the displeasure of the kuffar who will arrest us.

For many Muslims in a place like Britain, there is a fear of being the object of a “dawn-raid”. I asked - what was the error, according to Deen Al-Islam - of our brother Barbar Ahmad? What was the error of our brothers who demonstrated against those who insulted the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam)? Do we have to wait until we are arrested to say that a covenant no longer exists?

You write of our obligations regarding the covenant, but what about the obligations of the kuffar? As I mentioned, we must honour a covenant, if one exists - but we surely cannot continue to honour this if the kuffar do not honour this.

Are we obliged to honour something that they themselves are unaware of, or do not concern themselves with, or do not honour even if they are aware of this?

It seems as if some are inclining toward the view that we have an individual covenant with the kuffar by virtue of residence or a Visa - even though the kuffar are not aware of tthis covenant and we have not spoken to any kaffir about this or obtained their personal pledge to honour this covenant - which covenant we have to honour, until such a time as the kuffar directly attack us, as an individual, or arrest us. Which amounts to saying that we have obligations, but the kuffar have little or none, and do not have to know about this covenant or give us, on an individual basis, any pledge to honour this covenant.

the covenant IS individual contract and is binding even if it was a customary covenant, the ulemaa of the salaf spoke about a covenant being binding even if all they said was “welcome”, without to detail a pledge to honour the covenant explicitly.

Akhi,

The important point is that any covenant (agreement) has two parties. How can there be an agreement where one party, the Muslim, has to abide by certain conditions, and where the other party, the kuffar, do not have to abide by anything or do not even have to know that there is such an unstated, implied, agreement?

There has to be some terms which the other side, the other party, have to accept, or are deemed to have accepted, by the Muslims. If these terms are violated, then the agreement, the covenant, is no longer valid.

As stated by Sheikh Hummoud bin Uqla al-Shu’aybi (Rahimullah): “Treaties and covenants necessitate that both parties comply [with them]. And if they do not so comply, then they are broken.” (Clarification of What Occurred in Amerika)

The question therefore arises as to what are the terms of such implied, unacknowledged (by the kuffar) agreements which we are deemed to have, on an individual basis, with the kuffar through residence or entry into their lands?

If we know these terms, then we know when the kuffar have broken these individual covenants/agreements.

the terms are that neither party will violate the others sanctity in any life or wealth. indeed if the kuffar betray your covenant then it is invalidated and you are no longer bound by it but if they give release you and give you security again after that, then it is binding upon you, that is what was mentioned by Imam Shafi’i, ibn Hazm, Imam Ahmed, Qadi Iyaad, Imam Shaybaani etc.

The covenant of a muslim entering the lands of the kuffar is an individual one and will not be violated by fighting between those kuffar and OTHER people, that was mentioned by imam Shafi’i in Kitab ul Umm and these matters are agreed upon.

the reality in the UK may be that large sections of the community are in fitnah and have no covenant, but if they affirm a new covenant (even customary one which is also agreed upon), then it is binding upon them.

Jazakallahu khayran for the reply.

However, my question still remains as to the nature of the covenant - it is surely impossible to have an agreement, a covenant, between two parties when one party is not aware of such an agreement and no terms for such an agreement have been agreed between the two parties.

That is, for there to be any agreement, any covenant, there must be consent between the two parties - if there is not, then by definition it is not an agreement, not a covenant.

As I stated, you cannot have an agreement, a covenant, between two people if one of these people does not even know about the agreement and has not given their assent to it.

You cannot have an implied agreement - an implied covenant - of which the kuffar are unaware, but which the Muslims have to abide by. This seems to be the view that some Muslims are inclining toward.

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

“If they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your Deen, then fight them for you are no longer bound by your covenant.” 9:12 Interpretation of meaning

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala clearly states that here that a covenant means an oath - that is, people have personally pledged to abide by an agreement. There are many more such examples which could be given as to the nature of a covenant.

Thus, when speaking or writing about an agreement, a covenant, we are surely speaking and writing about two parties giving their assent to such an agreement. We are not - or rather should not - be speaking and writing about assuming the kuffar have given their assent to something they do not even know about on the personal level.

it is not unknown to the kuffar, the fact that they allow you to enter without to attack you or take your wealth, they have agreed to live beside you without fighting you. If you betray that, it is ghadr whether or not there is an explicit covenant.

Akhi,

This is the important issue - you are re-stating the assumption that has been made by someone that there is an implicit, unspoken, agreement (covenant) with the kuffar in such circumstances.

I incline toward the view that this is incorrect because a covenant by its very nature means an explicit agreement which is made between two people (Muslim and kaffir) or between two parties, one of whom represents the Muslims, or some Muslims, and one of whom is some representative of the kuffar. An explicit agreement means that the terms and conditions are known to, and accepted by, both parties. They can be spoken or written, or both - but they have to be known, understood andd accepted, by both parties, for there to be covenant in the first place.

You are stating that in the assumed implicit agreement, the kuffar do not make known the terms and conditions. So how can they be agreed to by a Muslim? Also, you are stating that the kuffar do not necessarily know about the agreement - so how can we make an agreement with someone who does not know we are making an agreement?

Consider the example of obtaining and using a Visa to enter the lands of the kuffar. It has been suggested that this is an acceptance of a covenant of security between us and the kuffar. How can that be when we do not know the conditions of this covenant, and when there is no kaffir to whom we can give our agreement in person and who can give their agreement on behalf of the kuffar?

Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says many times that a covenant and an oath go together - as ibn Kathir makes quite clear in his Tafsir (16:91). Therefore we can surely conclude that a covenant by its very nature is an explicit agreement, not an implied one, and certainly not one which the kuffar do not know about or which does not give the kuffar any obligations at all.

A covenant means that both sides have duties and obligations - such an implicit covenant as has been suggested means we have duties and obligations and the kuffar have none.

All the evidences you gave can be related to such explicit covenants as I have outlined.

There is also the issue - which has not been addressed so far - of what constituted the breaking of a covenant we might have with the kuffar. Let us suppose we do have such a covenant, for whatever reason and by whatever means. What do the kuffar have to do to violate that covenant? Do they have to arrest us? Attack us, in person? Or do they violate it when they abuse Deen Al-Islam and insult the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) or when they imprison our brothers and sisters; invade our lands, and kill our brothers and sisters? Do we have an obligation to defend Deen Al-Islam, our lands, and our brothers and sisters?

It is well-known for instance that as Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) said in relation to Ka’b bin Al-Ashraf : “It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi’s blood…but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant.” (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

This can and has been taken to mean that there is no ‘aqd amaan for the person who insults the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) be they kaffir or Muslim. The same principle applies to the kuffar who invade our lands - by that action they violate whatever covenant exists.

That is, even though we may have an individual covenant, the generality of dishonour, treachery and abuse by the kuffar can nullify that covenant, for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

“If you expect dishonesty from any people, throw back their covenant at them, for Allah dislikes dishonesty.” 8: 58 Interpretation of Meaning

that is the explicit covenant, we are agreed about that. but the existence of an implicit one in the shari’ah is agreed upon among the ulemaa of the salaf, call it a different name if you like but it still exists.

Akhi, the fundamental fact remains - there cannot be an assumed implicit covenant which does not involve a spoken or written agreement between the two parties involved.

We cannot and should not assume that there is any covenant - there is only a covenant, an agreement, if there is or has been an open agreement made between two individuals. That is, that the two individuals know there is an agreement and the terms and conditions of that agreement have been made clear and explicit. There has to be some exchange of words - something said, or written, or both. This a fundamental principle of Shariah.

Shariah does not deal with assumptions, or presumptions. It deals only with what is said or done or both. This makes it quite different from - and superior to - the manufactured law of the kuffar, which deals in abstractions and assumptions. Thus, there is not any such thing in Shariah as “intent” or “inciting” - features of modern kaffir laws. This is clear if we consider, for example, a fundamental text such as Al-Muwatta by Malik ibn Anas al-Asbahi or Kitab al-Mabsut by Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi. The fundamental principles were upheld until the fall of the Ottoman Khilafah, where there was an attempt to codify the principles relating to “civil law” in a way similar to law canons of the kuffar, in “Majallah al-Ahkam i-Adilya”.

Furthermore, and importantly, Shariah deals with individuals - with disputes or agreements between individuals. An individual must make a case against another individual - there is no such thing as some “State official” or some “State-appointed organization” who or which bring some prosecution in “the name of some State or in the anem of some government”. Transgression in Shariah is against an individual, or against Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala - it involves in going beyond the limits, the bounds (hudood) that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has set. This also makes it very different from - and superior to - kaffir so-called “justice”. Shariah is human, honourable and thus civilized, whereas the abstract laws of the kuffar are not.

The adillah you refer to in this matter concern such open and direct agreements.

QUOTE

second of all, the kuffar are aware of the implied agreement just as we are,

My apologies for being so direct: but no they are not, in the case of these assumed, unspoken, unwritten, covenants that you are speaking about, for reasons I have explained previously and shall explain.

QUOTE

the reality of the VISA and asylum is one of an agreement to permit the person to enter or live in or travel through the country safely, it is one of hte most explicit forms of covenant of security.

I incline toward the view that this is incorrect. What you are stating is a new principle which is based on several assumptions. One assumption is that such a Visa is a covenant according to Shariah - but this cannot be, since a Shariah covenant means a spoken or written agreement which is agreed to by both sides in the presence of each other, where oaths, or something similar, are given, to uphold this agreement. That is, the terms and conditions are explicit and known and agreed to, person to person. This does not happen when one goes to obtain a Visa or uses that Visa. A Visa is simply an impersonal official document which gives permission to travel and reside in a place for a certain period of time - there is nothing whatsoever in any Visa application that states or requires you to agree to refrain from certain activities.

These days, you can get a Visa by post - and never see or speak to any representative of that country you desire to enter. All you have to do (usually) is state whether your trip is for tourism (personal) or for business.

There is also nothing whatsoever in the Visa which gives any terms or conditions about general security or activities, or whatever, or about the duties and obligations the kuffar have toward us - that is, what they themselves pledge to uphold in relation to us. Again, assumptions are being made that such things are “implicit”. Well, they are not.

Until they are explicit - and until we give a personal agreement to abide by them - and until the duties and obligations of the kuffar toward us are explained in detail, there cannot be a Shariah covenant by such things.

QUOTE

but the individual covenant is not on behalf of the entire Ummah, it is between the kuffar and the individual, it is still binding upon him even if they betrayed other muslim individuals.

I incline toward the view that this in incorrect. As I stated, even if we assume we have an individual covenant with the kuffar, then this can be violated by the kuffar if the kuffar do certain things. Why?

Because we have duties and obligations toward our brothers and sisters - and toward Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala and His Messenger (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam). These duties come before our own welfare, our own desires, our own life. Thus, if the kuffar with whom we might have a covenant act in a treacherous, dishonourable, dishonest way toward our brothers or sisters, then they have violated that covenant by such actions.

That is, their general actions can and do violate an individual covenant. To say or suggest otherwise is to deny one of the fundamental principles of Deen Al-Islam. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

“The believers are as one family.” 49:10 Interpretation of Meaning

Also, it was narrated by Abdullah Ibn Umar that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Whoever helps his brother, then Allah will help him; whoever saves his brother from distress, Allah will save from distress, and whoever shields his brother, Allah will shield him.” Bukhari: Vol 3, Book 43, 622

It was narrated from Yahya from Malik from Abu’z-Zinad from al-Araj from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet, Muhammad (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said, “Do not turn away from each other - rather, as slaves of Allah, be brothers.” Malik, Muwatta: Book 47, Number 47, 4.15

That is, as Muslims we are not directed to be selfish - to concern ourselves only with what happens to us. The dishonour of one of our brothers and sisters is our dishonour whether that Muslim lives where we reside or whether they reside elsewhere. For we do not recognize the sanctity of the borders of the kuffar - we only recognize Muslim and Kaffir; only Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. An insult by someone against the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) is an insult against us, and such insults against the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) also violate whatever covenant we may have with the kuffar who make or who allow such insults, as the quote I gave from Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) shows.

This unity, this brotherhood of feeling and of deeds, is one of beauties, the strengths - Alhamdulillah - of Deen Al-Islam.

QUOTE

Please try to appreciate the depth of this topic,

With respect, Akhi, I am fully aware of the nature of this important issue - but the underlying principles are quite simple. What has made the matter seem confusing is that there has been an attempt to impose assumptions about covenants in an attempt to not offend the kuffar or to appear to be not threatening to the kuffar - to strive to give the appearance that because we have some kind of assumed, implied, covenant to them, we cannot and should not attack them in Dar al-Harb.

InshaAllah, I shall go into more detail soon, and may Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala forgive us for our mistakes and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

brother, the fundamental fact as you called it is not a fact and rather the opposite is true and agreed upon by the ulemaa of the salaf and we have been ordered to follow and not to innovate.

Jazakallahu khayran for the reply.

Akhi, as I understand it, the view you are expounding regarding Amaan is that of Sheikh Abdul-Qadir Abdul-Aziz and Sheikh Nasar ibn Hamad Al-Fahd, and they regard such things as a Visa as a contract of Amaan by Urf (or custom) since according to them the basis for this contract is that the kuffar honour the life and the wealth of the Muslim while he dwells in the lands of the kuffar.

This has been taken further, and it has also been stated that this applies to obtaining a ticket to board an aeroplane - that such a ticket is an implied covenant of security. (This claim was made by Issam Al-Din Darablah, for which see the rather dubious London-based newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, edition of September 1, 2006 CE.)

What is involved here, according to my understanding, is an assumption about an implied contract - that they are stating that this implied contract does not require what a normal Shariah contract does, which is that two parties make an agreement in person, with both being aware of the terms and conditions of that contract. This does seem to involve a new understanding of contracts, of Amaan.

The Ayat you quote is not evidence of this/your position - for as I stated in an earlier reply, we are duty bound to honour a covenant, if we have a covenant. There is no dispute about that. My argument is that this seemingly new implied contract is not a covenant, therefore we are not bound by a covenant of Amaan if we purchase an airline ticket or acquire a Visa or similar things.

As far as I can see, the objections I have raised have not been answered. Thus, if we consider what Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah says: “The covenant (ahd) is such that if one of the two who have signed it does not fulfil what was agreed upon, then that contract is void, violated, with the other person who signed it able to cast it aside.” Ahkam Ahl Ath-Thimmah, 3, 1354

Here again we have a Shariah understanding of a contract, as we do for instance when Sheikh Abdullah ibn Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (Rahimullah) mentions Amaan in Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah fee al-Ajwibah an-Najdiyyah. That is, it involves people communicating directly with each other, and knowing what their duties and obligations are.

QUOTE

as for the mixing between individual covenants and collective covenants, again it is established in the shari’ah and indeed in the Qur’an that your covenant is not necessarily violated by an attack on other muslims.

This is obscuring the issue above about the nature of implied contracts/covenants/agreements. But the question here is: what is a collective covenant, today, given that there is no Dar al-Islam, and no Khalifah? Is there even such a thing? Who has such authority?

The issue really is the validity or otherwise of this new implied covenant, and I stated that even if, for the sake of argument, we have an individual covenant of Amaan with the kuffar, then the kuffar break this when they invade our lands; dishonour, humiliate, torture and kill our brothers and sisters, or even if they insult our Deen and our beloved Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam).

What you seem to be implying is that if we have this implied covenant, which is individual, we must abide by it whatever the kuffar do to our brothers and sisters, since this implied covenant can only be violated if the kuffar personally attack us, or arrest us. That is, it gives the kuffar hardly any duties or obligations toward Deen Al-Islam or toward the Muslims - it deals only with each individual Muslim. Such a covenant by its very nature is surely dishonourable and unfair since it gives the kuffar the right to insult our Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), insult our Deen, kill and tortue our brothers and sisters, and invade our lands without us being able to do anything about it. That is, it ties our hands. I am sure InshaAllah that no Muslim would enter into such a contract were these unfair conditions explained to them. But they have not been explained to them, as far I can see, which to put it bluntly from a Shariah point of view makes it no contract at all.

My argument is that this type of contract is not correct - since it is accepted that if a kaffir insults our Deen or the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) then they are deemed that this very act breaks whatever covenant they may have with Muslims.

I give again what Sheikh ul-Islam ibn Taymayyah (Rahimullah) says:

“It was not permissible to kill him just because of his disbelief, for the agreement of amnesty protects the harbi’s blood…but they killed him because of his continuous attacks and harm against Allah and His Messenger, and if it becomes permissible to kill someone on this basis, then his blood does not have sanctity by a agreement of amnesty or covenant.” (as-Saarim al-Maslool 2, 179)

Furthermore, it is not the leaders of the kuffar who are held accountable, but the kuffar themselves, as is shown by the killing, on the orders of the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), of hundreds of Banu Quraytath even though it was only the leaders who broke the covenant, as has been mentioned by Ibn al-Qayyim in Zad al-Maad.

However, it does seem that in this particular matter of implied covenants, we shall have to agree to disagree, but please know that I am not innovating anything, just striving InshaAllah to clarify what seems to be a new assumption regarding Shariah contracts, and I am not alone in having reservations about this new assumption.

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala forgive us for our mistakes and may He guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

i didn’t and am not quoting any of those scholars for my position though i certainly agree with the position of Sheikh Naasir Al Fahd and Sheikh Abdul Qadir ibn Abdul Aziz and the many other scholars like them. I am quoting the fatwa and ijmaa’ mentioned by Imam Shafi’i, Imam ibn Hazm, Imam Ahmed, Imam Shaybaani, Imam Qadi Iyaad, Imam ibn Muflih and the others like them.

Akhi, the adilla you gave do not relate to this new use of a contract of Amaan. They relate to the customary Shariah contract. This new contract does not, according to the view I incline toward, meet the criteria for a Shariah contract as established by Quran and Sunnah. This new contract is that said to result from obtaining a Visa and similar things. This is a modern view about Amaan which has only been put forward in the last decade.

There is no dispute that a Shariah contract must be honoured.

You have failed to explain how this new implied contract such as a Visa meets the criteria of a Shariah contract, which Shariah contract involves two people agreeing, face to face, to terms they both understand and which have been made clear to them.

This new contract does not involve this - everything is said to be implied, and there does not even have to be someone from the kuffar present, in person, to explain the terms of this contract, and these terms have never been made clear, by the kuffar, or even accepted by any of the kuffar. All we have are assumptions by Muslims about what they believe the new contract of Amaan means for the kuffar.

In addition, the implied terms are unfair to the Muslims and do not give any obligations to the kuffar at all. Further, the conditions of this new contract do seem to allow the kuffar tot attack Deen Al-Islam and to insult the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) without violating this new contract, which abrogates the understanding of the Salaf, which as I explained is that such things nullify and make void any covenants.

QUOTE

the existence of individual covenants that are not affected by the betrayal of the kuffar against OTHER people.

This is true of a Shariah contract - there is no dispute about this. But is this new contract of Amaan a Shariah contract? That is my point. I incline toward the view that it is not.

The Ayah relates to a Shariah contract , as do the adillah you gave.

QUOTE

as for “i am sure that no muslim would enter into such a contract …”, nobody is insisting that you do so, but the fact that he/she entered their lands and is living between them as a muslim secured from them, if he is the one to betray them, he is ghaddar

That would be true if it was a valid Shariah contract, but whether this new implied contract is a Shariah one is what is being disputed here.

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala forgive us for our mistakes and may He guide us to and keep us on the Right Path

this is not a new contract or new concept that the ulemaa of the salaf never mentioned, rather they spoke about it at length already and are agreed about it. i think you made the assumption that this type of covenant was only ever mentioned in the last decade but that is not true.

Akhi, with respect, the evidences you give refer to an explicit contract - where there is conversation between the two sides, and where the Muslim gives a verbal pledge, their word of honour.

Thus, to quote one evidence you gave: “If a Muslim enters Dar ul Harb, and he says to them “I am going to look for a wife” or “to study” or “for trading” or just to pass through the land to go somewhere else, it is agreed that it is a form of customary covenant.” [Al Maqsud]

That is - “he says to them…”

There are many such evidences, but they refer to an explicit contract which is made between two individuals with both individuals exchanging information about the matter.

This new contract does not require this exchange, or indeed any exchange - everything is assumed or implied. The Muslim does not even speak to any kaffir - they do not give their word of honour. It is just assumed that this piece of paper is a contract, with the conditions being implied, and not stated anywhere or by anyone.

That is, even these bits of kaffir paper do not state what has been assumed by some Muslims. Everything is being assumed by the Muslim, with no kaffir making any statement regarding their obligations, or pledging anything. Also, most Muslims are not making a direct pledge either - it is just being assumed that getting such a piece of paper is a pledge, by them.

QUOTE

any form of VISA whether visitor, transit, student, business, let alone settlement is a binding customary covenant

I incline to the view that this is not correct - that it is not a customary Shariah covenant which still requires words said or written and still requires two people to agree, in person.

It cannot be done “at a distance” or just by assuming some piece of paper contains some conditions, which they do not. Neither can it be done by assuming that a piece of paper implies some conditions - we Muslims are the only ones here making assumptions about such a piece of paper having implied conditions; the kuffar are not.

Akhi, I do think we shall have to finally agree to disagree on this particulat subject.

Whatever good that may have been written is from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, and whatever mistakes or errors have been made are from me.

May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

Abdul-Aziz
21 Muharram 1428

Notes:

(1) This discussion arose from issues discussed by Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, in an essay of his entitled Al Aqd Al Amaan.

Appendix:  The Facts On What Constitutes Covenants In Islam

By Abu Haithem Al-Hijazee

The events of September 11, 2001 (The New York and Washington Expeditions) and the kidnapping and the subsequent killing of the American engineer, Paul Johnson, brought the subject of covenants in Islam to the forefront of the current unjust war against Muslims everywhere. Many individuals who call themselves (or are called so by their generous employers or masters amongst the apostate rulers of Arab countries) people of knowledge or even scholars, have cried wolf over the events mentioned above. They claimed that the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, and the killing of Paul Johnson violated Islamic laws on the following bases:

1. In the case of the attacks on Mainland America, Muslims were in a state of peace with America and therefore, the attacks violated an existing covenant.

2. In the case of Paul Johnson, they claimed that he was contracted to work in Saudi Arabia and as such, he was supposed to have been under a covenant given to him by the late King Fahd. Therefore, he should not have been harmed.

The crucial importance of the subject and the fact that it was briefly mentioned in one of Osama bin Laden’s messages has prompted this work.

This essay will show that the above Fatwa (opinion) does not have any leg to stand on. Unfortunately many of the individuals who advocated this Fatwa were household names in many Muslim communities. Thousands and perhaps millions of Muslims blindly follow who they think are knowledgeable and trusted Sheikhs. The adverse impact of such a blind following on Jihad and Mujahideen is enormous. But Alhamdulillah (praise be to Allah), true Islamic scholars who work for Allah and not for apostate rulers have been fighting back and have been educating the masses.

Rules That Must Be Followed To Arrive at a Fatwa (Opinion) Regarding Any Issue In Islam

Muslims must be made aware of the standard practice followed by Islamic scholars before rendering an opinion on a matter of religious importance. Ever since the time of the messenger of Allah, Muhammad (PBUH), Islamic scholars adhered to a strict set of rules to resolve disputes, misunderstanding, or lack of understanding of any issue.

Here are the most important rules that apply to our subject:

1. For each matter there is a standard rule that is called “ASL” (basic, main, or fundamental), in Arabic. Many matters have exceptions. Exceptions allow leeway or license granted by Allah to deal with specific situations on a temporary basis. Exceptions do not erase, replace, or abrogate standard rules. When the condition(s) (for which a particular license was being practiced) no longer exist, the license becomes null and void.

Take Salah (prayer) for example, the number of Raka’ah and time to perform each of the five daily prayers is covered by a standard rule. However, whenever a Muslim is traveling, he or she can take advantage of a temporary license granted by Allah for the purpose of lessening the burden of meeting the standard rule in times of possible hardship caused by travel. According to this license, a Muslim traveler is allowed to reduce the number of Raka’ah for the Dhuhr, Asr, and Isha prayers, from four to two. Furthermore, the traveler can combine both Dhuhr and Asr, in one prayer performed at the time of either one. The traveler can do the same with the Maghrib and Isha prayers except that Maghrib prayer may not be reduced to two Raka’aht while Isha prayer may. As soon as the traveler returns home or the length of time he or she stayed in the new destination changed his status from temporary resident to a permanent one, he or she loses the right to practice the temporary license given and must start implementing the standard rule.

2. Evidence to support a particular opinion must be gathered from none other than the following sources in the order given:

a. The Holy Book of Allah, Qura’an:

“Whatever it be wherein you differ, the decision thereof is with Allah..” 42:10

“If you differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in Allah and the Last Day: That is best and most suitable for final determination.” 4:59

b. The Messenger Of Allah:

See 4:59 above.

The messenger of Allah said: “Follow my practice and the practice of the righteous and guided Khalifs after me”(1).

c. The Righteous And Guided Khalifs

See Hadith above.(2)

d. The Consensus Of The Scholars Of The Ummah

The Prophet (PBUH) said: “This Ummah will not be united on falsehood.”

3. In gathering evidence from Qura’an, one must exercise prudence as to dealing with fundamental A’ayat (verses) as opposed to unclear ones.

“He it is Who has sent down to you the Book: In it are verses Basic or fundamental clear (in meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not entirely clear. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is not entirely clear. Seeking discord, and searching for its interpretation, but no one knows its true meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in it, the whole of it is from our Lord:” and none will grasp the message except men of understanding.” 3:7

4. In gathering evidence from Qura’an, one must be careful as to not to build a case around a verse that is irrelevant or a verse that has been abrogated.

“None of our revelations Do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Know you not that Allah Has power over all things?” 2:106

5. Pieces of evidence gathered according to the above listed rules must support each others, and none of it should contradict any of the commands of Allah and his messenger.

6. Knowledge (in Islam) is knowing the truth through evidence (from the book of Allah and the practice of his messenger) and not by blind following. Abu Omar and other scholars have said. “The consensus of Muslims is a blind follower does not count as one of the people of knowledge”

“When it is said to them : “Come to what Allah has revealed; come to the messenger”: They say: Enough for us are the ways we found our fathers following.” What! Even though their fathers were void of knowledge and guidance?”, 5:104

7. No Fatwa (opinion) is valid, no matter how hard and convincing is the argument for it, if it alters, abandons, or indefinitely stalls any of the commands of Allah and his messenger. For example, those defeatists traitors who campaign for permanent peace with the cross worshipers, and for normalizing relations with the Jews, are doing themselves and the entire Ummah of Islam a major disservice. Why? Because what they advocate will result in abandoning Jihad, which is necessary to establish La Ilaha Illa Allah (No God but Allah). As will be seen later in this article, one of the reasons for time limits on covenants with the Kafirs is to avoid stalling Jihad, let alone abandoning it all together. Those who are advocating world peace based on what the Kafirs and their organizations (such as UN) want, are only Muslims in names. They will get what they deserve from Allah.

8. Finally, some exceptions or licenses are allowed for individuals but not for an entire community, city, or an entire state. For example, on an individual level, a person who happened to live or be present in a Kafir community, is allowed to stall Jihad, or even utter words of Kufr if his life is threatened, until he gets help or migrate from the Kafirs location, as long as Islam and Imaan are still firmly grounded in his heart. However, this license cannot be extended to an entire community, city or a state. Here again, anything that will put off Jihad and establishing La Ilaha Illa Allah indefinitely is not permitted at the community level even though it is permitted at an individual level.

Issues Pertaining To Covenants In Islam In Light Of The Above Rules

First, we must answer the following question: what is the standard or fundamental rule governing the state of affairs between Muslims and Kafirs? Fundamentally, the state of affairs between Muslims and Kafirs is one of fighting (war), not one of peace. Here is the evidence:

“Fight them on until there is no more persecution, and the religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety. But if they cease, verily Allah does see all they do.” 8:39

“And slay them wherever you catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for persecution is worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who reject faith.” 2:191

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger, nor acknowledge the Religion of Truth, from among the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29

Allah has commanded the believers to fight the unbelievers everywhere until they embrace Islam and declare that “La Ilaha Illa Allah”, (No God but Allah). The messenger of Allah said: I was order to fight people until they declare that No god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they perform the prescribed prayers and pay the prescribed Zakat (income tax). (3)

The messenger of Allah also said: I was sent with the sword, ahead of the Last Day, and my sustenance was placed under the shadow of my spear, and disgrace and humiliation are the reward of anyone who disobeys me.” (4).

When Muslims fought their first major battle, the Battle of Badr, they were poor, outnumbered and outgunned. Many Muslims did not even have footwear. There were times when the messenger of Allah himself had to tie a big rock on his stomach to fight hunger bang. But after Muslims received the permission from Allah to fight to protect the Islamic state and establish La Ilaha Illa Allah, they went on many expeditions. The economic benefits of those expeditions, especially when Muslims conquered the Persian and the Roman Empires were enormous.

So there is a reason why millions of Muslims live at or below poverty level, let alone starve to death while many Kafir countries control the wealth of the world. Jihad brings Ezzah (glory and honor), independence, wealth, and most importantly, establishes the religion of Allah.

Ali Ibn Abi Taleb, a cousin of the messenger of Allah, and the fourth Khalif, said: The prophet was sent with four swords: One sword for the pagans, another one for the People of the Book, the third sword was for the Hypocrites, and the fourth one was for the transgressors from this Ummah.

Peace with the Kafirs is the exception to the rule and should be considered only if a lawful reason exists which I will address further on.

Imam El-Shafie said in his book “Al-Umm” (The Mother): “The fundamental stand is fighting the Kafirs until they embrace Islam or pay the Jizyah”. He also said in the same book: “Fighting them (Kafirs) is Fardh (mandatory). (5)

Ibn Qudamah said in Al-Maghna: “Jihad must be implemented at least once a year because the Jizya is due once a year, and since Jizya is in lieu of fighting, then Jihad must be performed at least once a year, and that is the command of Allah.”

Jihad should be delayed only for a lawful excuse such as, weakness among the Muslims, shortage in manpower or war equipment, waiting for reinforcement, or the road to the enemy contains barriers that Muslims need to develop a way to overcome (barriers).”

The above verses from Qura’an, the above Hadith of the messenger of Allah, and the consensus of great Islamic scholars such as Al-Shafie, Ibn Qudamah, Ibn Taymiyah and Ahmad Ibn Hanbal clearly demonstrate that fighting is the standard or fundamental rule governing the state of affairs between Muslims and Kafirs.

What Is The Kafirs Fundamental Rule That Governs The State Of Affairs Between Them And The Muslims?

Let us get the answer directly from Allah:

“How can there be a covenant before Allah and His Messenger, with the Pagans, except those with whom you made a treaty near the Sacred Mosque? As long as they stand true to you, stand true to them: For Allah does love the righteous.” 9:7

“How (can there be such a covenant) seeing that if they get an advantage over you, they respect not in you the ties either of kinship or of covenant? With (fair words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are averse from you; and most of them are rebellious and wicked.” 9:8

“In a Believer they respect not the ties or kinship or of a covenant! It is they who have transgressed all bounds.” 9:10

The above three verses give this irrefutable answer to the question: The fundamental or standard practice of Kafirs is breaking their covenants.

Ibn Kathir gave this account in his interpretations of the verses above: Allah is showing his wisdom in dissociating himself from the Kafirs and giving them four months only before the sword was to fall on them. They do not deserve a covenant of any sort to begin with, because they believe not in Allah, nor his messenger. But if they were giving a covenant, they will surely break it. Allah ordered his messenger to honor the covenant he gave them in Makkah (the Hudaybiah covenant, which was signed at the end of the 6th year of Hijrah and was supposed to run for 10 years) so long they honor it. The messenger of Allah did what Allah has ordered him to do. But the Kafirs broke their covenant less than two years into its term. They plotted the killing of Banu Khuzaha (who were allied with the Prophet) in the Sacred Mosque. When that happened, the Prophet and the believers conquered them in Ramadan of the 8th year of Hijrah.

Ibn Kathir went on to say that Allah incites the believers to dissociate themselves from the Kafirs and show animosity towards them because the minute they (the Kafirs) get an advantage over the believers, they will stop at nothing to wipe them and their religion (Islam) out. (6).

The clarity of the above verses led Islamic scholars to conclude “that the Kafirs do not deserve any covenant, they will not respect any covenant should they get an advantage over the believers, and if they get any covenant, they will break it. Anyone who believes otherwise is one who is misguided and misguides others.”

Covenants or treaties are allowed whenever one or more of the conditions mentioned above exist.

Issues Relating To Covenants In Light Of The Islamic Shariah

Here we will address the following issues:

1. Length of covenant

2. Can a covenant be broken by Muslims?

3. Are there any conditions that cannot be a part of any covenant?

4. What action by Kafirs constitutes violation of covenant?

5. Who is authorized to bind Muslims by covenant?

1. Length Of A Covenant

First, it is the consensus of Islamic scholars that a covenant must be for a limited term. An unlimited covenant is invalid because it will contradict the following command by Allah:

“And fight them on until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes Allah’s in its entirety but if they cease, verily Allah does see all that they do.” 8:39

The great Islamic scholar, Ibn Taymiyah, has recorded the consensus of Islamic scholars in his “Fatawa Ibn Taymiyah” as follows:

“If part of the Deen (religion) is Allah’s, and part of it is not, then Muslims are obligated to fight the Kafirs until the entire religion is Allah’s.”

Second, how long a covenant should be? The answer to that depends on whether Muslims are weak or strong. If Muslims are strong and can take on their enemies, the length of covenant must not exceed four months.

“A declaration of immunity from Allah and His Messenger, to those Pagans with whom you have contracted Mutual alliances: Go you, then for four months, (as you will), throughout the land, but know yet that you cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.” 9:1-2

Kafirs have been known to break their treaties with Muslims time and time again. At one point, Allah decided that enough was enough, and all permanent treaties were canceled albeit with proper notice. The Muslims at that time were strong.

Another evidence for limiting the term of covenant to four months (when Muslims are strong) is the example of Safwan Ibn Umaiah. When the prophet conquered Makkah, he gave Safwan Ibn Umaiah four months to go where he pleased. Safwan embraced Islam before the end of the term of the covenant. Other treaties where term limits have been fixed were honored as long as the other party did not violate their treaty and did not form an alliance with other Kafirs against Muslims.

“(But the treaties are not) dissolved with those Pagans with whom you have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfill your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loves the righteous.” 9:4

If Muslims were in a state of weakness, they can enter into a treaty for more than four months. Islamic scholars used the ten years limit of the Hudaibiah Treaty as the maximum limit of any treaty between Muslims and Kafirs whenever Muslims are weak.

Imam Al-Shafhi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “If Muslims are faced with a strong enemy (I hope by Allah, this day will not come), their (Muslims) Imam may sign a treaty with the enemy for a period of time during which Muslims will be strong enough (to resume Jihad). The treaty term limit should not exceed that of Hudaibiah. He may also put no specific time on the treaty but in this case he must retain the right to break at any time (when Muslims regain their strength) before ten years. If Muslims were strong to begin with, the term limit should not exceed four months.” The basis for Al-Shafhi’s Fatwa was the first verse of Sura Taubah mentioned above.

Al-Shafhi further said “I am not aware of any Imam who signed a treaty that exceeded four months when Muslims were strong or ten years in case of weakness”

Imam Al-Maourdy said: “If any Imam signed a treaty that exceeds ten years, that treaty becomes invalid”

Ibn Muflih said: ‘A treaty becomes invalid if its term limit left open (unlimited) because that would stall Jihad which is the fundamental rule.”

2. Can Covenants Be Broken By Muslims?

Muslims should use the peace time (time of treaty with their enemy) to prepare themselves for fighting to establish La Ilaha Illa Allah (No God but Allah). Again, Islamic scholars continued to say that the fundamental stand is fighting and therefore, a treaty should be used to get ready to fight again as soon as possible.

“Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, and others besides, whom you may not know, but whom Allah does know. Whatever you shall spend in the cause of Allah, shall be repaid unto you, and you shall not be treated unjustly.” 8:60

“If you fear treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: For Allah loves not the treacherous.” 8:58

3. Are There Any Conditions That Cannot Be A Part Of Any Covenant?

Yes. A covenant must be free of any of the following conditions:

• Allowing them (the enemies) to keep a Muslim prisoner or his (the Muslim) money.

• Sending back women who left the enemy and came to Muslims to embrace Islam.

• Allowing them to pay Jizyah in an amount less than a Dinar.

• Allowing them to collect money from the Muslim state.

• Allowing them to establish residency in Hijaz (Arabian Peninsula) or enter Al-Haram (the Holy Mosque), or display intoxicants (wines) in our communities.

4. What Action By Kafir Constitutes Violation Of Covenant?

Any act of aggression against a Muslim, or his property, or against a Muslim land anywhere invalidates a covenant (if one exists). Also, taking Muslim(s) prisoner(s) renders a covenant invalid.

Needless to say, the crimes committed by Americans, the British and the Jews against Muslims across the globe are endless. Therefore, those (apostate rulers of Muslim countries, Sheikhs working for the apostate rulers, or Sheikhs who have their own personal agenda) who are talking about having a covenant with the enemies of Allah are misguided, and are misguiding others.

5. Who Is Authorized To Bind Muslims By A Covenant?

Islamic scholars agreed that only the Grand Imam (Khalif), or his representative with his permission, is allowed to bind Muslims by a covenant with their enemies.

Al-fera’a Al-Hanbali said: “One Amir can bind Muslims by a covenant provided that the Grand Imam has given him permission to do so. And both must be ruling Muslims by the Shariah (Islamic laws), otherwise, no Muslim is obligated to obey an Amir or Khalif who is not ruling by the Shariah.”(7).

Further, it is the consensus of Islamic scholars that if the Imam of Muslims signed a treaty (with the Kafirs) that violates the Book of Allah (Qura’an) or the Sunnah (the prophet’s practice), such a treaty is null and void, and Muslims are not bound by it. Their stand is based on the following Hadith by the prophet:

“No creature is to be obeyed if he violates the creator’s commands”

Based on the above, it is quite clear that the argument made by some rulers or their Sheikhs regarding having a covenant with America or some foreign cross worshipers, has no merits for the following reasons:

1. All Muslim rulers nowadays are apostates. Therefore, Muslims are not supposed to obey them.

2. No covenant with the Kafirs is valid, even if they (rulers) claim to have one, because:

• Lack of specific term limits

• The Kafirs have transgressed on Muslims and Muslim land

• The Kafirs hold Muslim prisoners

• The Kafirs have established residency and positions of power in the Arabian Peninsula

A state of war does exist now between Muslims and Kafirs because of the above.

Therefore, all Kafir military personnel and the so called civilians are lawful targets. Some so-called civilians, like the engineer Paul Johnson, are directly helping the Kafir army to develop war machines to kill more Muslims. The role of such civilians is very clear. Some Muslims may be fooled into thinking that other civilians who never raised a weapon against Muslims should be spared. It must be known that leaders in America and Britain are elected by their citizens. When citizens vote, they vote for the person and his policy. Therefore, all civilians (except women and children who meet the Islamic Rules of engagement test) are lawful targets. Besides, the word “civilian” does not exist in Islamic Shariah. Our Shariah divide people into two categories: Believers and unbelievers:

“It is He who created you; and of you some that are unbelievers, and some that are believers: And Allah sees well all that you do.” 64:2

The Shariah cannot be made to fit “Hawa” (personal desires).

“If the truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been ruin, nay, we have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.” 23:71

Those who advocate peace or permanent covenant with the Kafirs ought to know that they cannot twist the Shariah to fit their own desires. They also ought to know that the message (Tawhid) cannot be divided or compromised; it must be delivered and implemented in full.

“Then it is only part of the Book that you believe in, and do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those among you who behave like this but disgrace in this life? And on the Day of Judgment they shall be consigned to the most grievous chastisement for Allah is not unmindful of what you do” 2:85

“And their purpose was to tempt you away from which we had revealed unto you, to substitute in our name something quite different: (In that case), behold! they would certainly have made you their friend! And had we not given you strength, you would have inclined to them a little. In that case we should have made you taste double portion (of punishment) in this life, and equal portion in death: and moreover you would have found none to help you against us.” 17:73-75

“But beware of them lest they beguile you from any of that (teaching) which Allah has sent down to you.” 5:49

“Their desire is that you should be pliant: So would they be pliant.” 68:9

The struggle between righteousness and falsehood will continue until the Last Day. Some individuals will stay the course and some won’t. Those who do not stay the course will not hurt Allah in the least. Allah has this to say to them:

“O you who believe! If any from among you turn back from faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love and they will love Him,-Lowly with the Believers, Mighty against the Rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleases. And Allah encompasses all, and He knows all things.” 5:54

There is a reason why great Muslim Imams and ordinary believers have been killed, tortured, or imprisoned. And there is a reason why other so called Muslims walk freely and never spent a day behind bars:

• Ibn Taymiyah died in prison

• Ahmad Ibn Hanbal was beaten and jailed for refusing to say that the Qura’an was created

• Abdullah Ibn Al-Zubair was killed because he refused to support Al-Hajjaj

• Sayed Qutb (may Allah accept him as martyred) was imprisoned, tortured and finally was hanged to death in Egypt for no reason other than insisting on the complete implementation of Shariah

• Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman (may Allah release him from prison) has been jailed in Egypt and he is now in jail in the US

• Sheikhs Naser Al-Fahd, Abu Qatadah, Fares Al-Zahrani, Al-Maqdisi, Al-Firazi, Abu Ghaith, and Abdullah Al-Saad, are in various jails in Jordan, UK and SA

• Sheikhs Abu Hamza Al-Masry and Faisal are in jail in the UK

While the above individuals were either killed, tortured, or jailed, others like Sheikhs Safar Al-Hawali, Salman AlAudah, Naser Al-Amro, and Omar Bakri are free. Because readers may be more familiar with individuals from modern times, let us take a few cases for further elaboration.

FROM EGYPT

Sayed Qutb refused to apologize (for the position he took) in exchange for his release. The day of his scheduled execution, the prison warden handed him a petition for amnesty to sign, assuring him that if he just apologize for what he did, not only he will not be executed but he will be out of jail in six months. Here is what Sayed Qutb said to the prison warden:

“If I have done something wrong in the eyes of Allah, I do not deserve mercy; but if I have not done anything wrong, I should be set free without having to plead for mercy”.

Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman interrupted the judge in the opening of his trial as the judge was trying to inform him of the crimes he is accused of. Omar Abdel Rahman had this to say:

“Is declaring La Ilaha Illa Allah (No God but Allah) a crime?” Before you try me, you must put yourself, the president of this country, and the entire government on trial for the most despicable crime, dismantling the Shariah of Allah, that is.”

FROM SAUDI ARABIA

At the time of their arrest, Sheikhs Salman Al-Audah, Safar Al-Hawali, Naser Al-Amro, and Naser Al-Fahd were known for strong positions with regard to implementation of Shariah, Jihad, and “ Wala’a Wal Bara’a” (Love and Hate for Allah). However, a deal was struck between them and the apostate government of SA. They were guaranteed release from jail if they went on public TV and denounced their former positions, and denounce what their Mujahideen brothers are doing. They all did, but Naser Al-Fahd realized the grave mistake he made, he then retracted his statement and wrote two letters, one to Prince Nayef, the Interior Minister informing him of his decision to recant his earlier public statement, and the other letter went to Osama Bin Laden to apologize for what he did. All were released from prison except Naser Al-Fahd

FROM THE UK

Sheikh Faisal, a Jamaican born Christian, converted to Islam when he was 18 and went to SA to study Islam and Arabic language. After 8 years in SA he returned to UK and started preaching the true and uncompromised Aqeedah of Ahlu Al-Sunnah Wa Al-Jamaah. He was arrested sometime after the New York and Washington Expeditions.

During his trial in Old Baily, in London, the judge informed him of the crimes he is being accused of. According to the judge, Sheikh Faisal was accused of hate crimes as he was inciting Muslim youth to hate Jews and Christians, train in the use of arms, and establishing Islamic Shariah by any means necessary, including killing.

Sheikh Faisal had this to say to the judge:

“I have been conveying to my fellow Muslims what Allah has revealed to us in the Holly Book, the Qura’an. So if conveying the message of Allah to All mankind is a crime in your eyes, then it is clear to me that Allah, His messenger, and the Qura’an are on trial here.”

Omar Bakri on the other hand, took an entirely different position when the British government and Zionist organizations were putting heat on him and the Muslim community. He announced over and over that he advocated no violence against the British government or its citizens. According to Omar Bakri, he and his followers are under a permanent covenant with the British government. According to this covenant, Omar Bakri and his followers will enjoy the convenience of living in the UK without being harassed by the British security force. In exchange for that, Omar Bakri and his followers would not advocate violence in the UK.

Since that time, Omar Bakri fled from the UK to Lebanon, but when the bombs stated falling there, Bakri wrote to the British Embassy asking to be allowed back on “humanitarian grounds” before trying to board a Royal Navy ship full of women and children. He was turned away.

No wonder Sheikh Faisal is serving a 9 years sentence while Omar Bakri is free. Sheikh Faisal did not compromise the message and he is paying for that with extreme pleasure. And why not? Isn’t it for the love of Allah?

Advocating permanent covenant with Kafirs also means dismantling the Aqeedah of Wala’a wa Al-Bara’a (love and hate for Allah) which is the strongest bond of Islamic Faith. Advocating a permanent covenant with the Kafirs will lead to raising generations upon generations of Muslims who will live a life of perfect peace and harmony with the enemies of Allah. How can La Ilaha Illa Allah (no god but Allah) be established if millions of Muslims get accustomed to living in a permanent peace with the Kafirs?

How could an Islamic State with adequate security be established if that is the case? Doesn’t Omar Bakri know what the following Verses mean:

“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibrâhîm (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: “Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allah Alone” - except the saying of Ibrâhîm (Abraham) to his father: “Verily, I will ask forgiveness (from Allah) for you, but I have no power to do anything for you before Allah.[2]” Our Lord! In You (Alone) we put our trust, and to You (Alone) we turn in repentance, and to You (Alone) is (our) final Return” 60:4

This verse sets the standards for our relationship with the enemies of Allah. Please note that Allah placed the word “hostility” ahead of the word “hatred”. You may hate someone but still do nothing about it. However, hostility is a state of physical struggle to eliminate a threat. How could hostility towards the Kafirs coexist with living in peace with them?

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad) , even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rûh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow to dwell therein (forever). Allah is pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Verily, it is the Party of Allah that will be the successful.” 58:22

The above verse is self-explanatory.

The problem with people like Omar Bakri , Abu Basir, Safar Al-Hawali and the like is not lack of understanding of Allah’s commands. They have put their personal agenda ahead of their love for Allah. Bakri and Abu Basir, for example, came to the UK and were granted asylum. They were living off the Kafirs British Government and they have opted for the old adage:

“Do not bite the hand that feeds you”. They have forgotten that their sustenance and whatever else happens to them is in the hands of Allah and Him alone.

As to Omar Abdel Rahman, Naser Al-Fahd, Abu Hamza Al-Masry, and Faisal, I call on Allah to speed up their release from the Kafir prisons. I also call on Allah to reward them for their hard work in His cause without compromising His message.

As to Safar Al-Hawali, Salman Al-Audah, Omar Bakri, and Abu Basir I would like to say this:

“Anyone who seeks Ezzah (glory and honor) and establishing a state of Tawhid (oneness) on the earth without Jihad is in a state of illusion and ignorance.”

When the messenger of Allah said: “I was sent with the sword ahead of the Last day”, his companions, and righteous scholars up to our present time understood that Hadith to mean that he (the prophet) was sent with a message and the means (the sword) to spread the message. That was why Ibn Taymiyah said: “This religion cannot be established without a book for guidance (Qura’an) and a sword to give it (the religion) the upper hand”.

I also like to remind them of the following verse:

“Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say: “The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) guidance.” Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge which has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah.” 2:120

Just who are those individuals who do not compromise the message of Allah to the point of paying for their stand with their life or with many years of torture in the most notorious jails on earth? What kind of people are they?

Allah has a name for them; He calls them “men”. And Allah has this to say about this special breed of people:

“Among the Believers are men who have been true to their covenant with Allah: Of them some have died and some (still) wait: But they have never changed (their determination in the least.” 33:23

The above verse does indeed separate the men from the boys. Or the men from the women, should we say?

And to all others (those who compromise the message), Allah has this to say:

“Say: If it be that your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your mates, or your kindred: The wealth that you have gained; the commerce in which you fear a decline: or the dwellings in which you delight- are dearer to you than Allah or His Messenger, or the striving in His cause;-then wait until Allah brings about His Decision: and Allah Guides not the rebellious.” 9:24

And our last call is Alhamdulillahi Rab Al-Aalameen (Praise be to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.)

Footnotes:

1. Cited by Bukhari and Moslem

2. Abu Bakr, Omar, Othman, and Ali, in the same order.
3 Cited by Moslem

4. Cited by Bukhari and Moslem

5. Al-Um by Imam Al-Shafhi (one of the four grand Imams- the other three are: Ibn Hanbal, Malik, and Abu Hanifah.)

6. Ibn Kathir, Vol.2 (Arabic version), Page 332-339
7. Al-Ahkam Al-Sultaniah (The Rules of Rulers), by Al-Ferah