IKRAH & TAQIYYAH

[Muferrid Muhammed Selefy]

IKRAH (Coercion)

“Allah (swt), when under coercion tolerates kufr and for this reason it is not questioned and the scholars have commented all the fer’i (secondary) hukm of deen according to this basis. For the fer’i hukm as long as force is in question the individual is not questioned and no hukm will be incumbent on...Allah (swt) excuses the mustadhaf who does not leave the hukm of Allah, unless defeat is in question. Only is the one under coercion (ikrah) a mustadhaf and he is the one who will not avoid executing the commands of Allah.” (Qurtubi, Tafsir, an-Nahl 16/106)     

The condition of the validation of coercion:

Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalanee states the following:

1) The person to threaten must carry the power (strength/authority) in order to execute such threat. The threatened person must be disabled or incapable to escape from such threat.
 
2) The individual under coercion must strongly believe that the threat will take place unless what had been ordered is done.
 
3) The action of threat must take place soon. If the person to execute the threat states something similar to “if you do not do as I tell you I will beat you tomorrow” this is not considered being under coercion. However if this is an action which is to take place very soon or if it is known that this authority will do as he states, in this case it would be an exception.

4) The person under coercion must not show a sign that he is taking such action willingly.
 
Ibn Hajar does not openly state the attribute of the threat however he does state the following which we present as a fifth principle.

5) The type of threat or the limitation must take importance. Ibn Hajar states: “There is opposing views regarding threat; there has been a mutual decision regarding death, the loss of an organ, severe beating, and long term of imprisonment. And there are opposing views regarding light beating or a day or two of imprisonment...” He also states “There are opposing views regarding the limitation of coercion. From Amr with a strong chain Abd ibn Humayd narrated: “When a person is imprisoned, when he is tied or when he is tortured he is not certain of his life.” Another narration from Shurayh is similar to this with the following addition: “Four things are coercion: imprisonment, beating, threat and being tied.” In another narration Ibn Masud states: “If there is a statement which will eliminate two beatings with a whip I will make that statement.” Most of the scholars agree with this. (Fath al-Ba'ri, Vol.12/311-312)
 
The following is stated in the tafsir of Al-Khaazin: "The coercion which the scholars have mentioned, excusing one from pronouncing a word of disbelief, is the threat of death, severe beating or torture. They are also agreed that someone who has been forced to declare disbelief may not make an open declaration, but he should resist this, giving his opponents the impression that he has already disbelieved. If they force him to announce this clearly and openly, then he may do so once his heart is fortified by faith, continuing to deny inwardly his declaration of disbelief. However, it is better for him to remain steadfast unto death. This is the lesson we have learned from Sumayyah and Yaasir, and from the persistence of Bilal before the torture of his inquisitors." (Tafsir al-Khaazin Nahl 106)
 
Regarding the limitations of coercion we have mentioned the Hanafi scholars divide into two sections:

1) Full coercion (Ikrah-i mulji): This is the type of coercion which a person is threatened with death, the loss of an organ or severe beating.

2) Incomplete coercion (Ikrah-i naqis): This type of coercion does not include the fright of loss and includes imprisonment, being tied and beatings. According to the madhhab of most scholars kufr only becomes permissive with full coercion. This is the view of the Hanafi, Malikee and the Hanbalee. Shaafee accounts imprisonment and being tied as coercion and permits kufr for this reason.

“Know that there are many types of coercion ‘ikrah’: For the first one to occur the forced act must be something like drinking alcohol, eating pork, or carcass. In this case if an individual is forced by a weapon the individual who is forced must do it. The reason for this is that he must save his life. In this case the only way he can save his life is to perform such act. When he eats and drinks in this case he will not be harming anyone nor will he be betraying the right of Allah. For the reason of the ayah “…make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction...” (al-Baqarah 2/195) this should be done. Secondly the act done is only permissible not waajib. An example for this would be an individual forcing another to make a kufr statement. In this case it is permissible that the individual under force make such statement, however as stated before it is not waajib nor is it fard. Thirdly the fact that the act is not waajib or mubah it is only haraam.  An example for this would be an individual being forced to kill another or cut off the limbs of another person. In this case the act of murder will continue its state of being haraam.   (Razi, Tafsir, an Nahl 106)

The opinions regarding being threatened with ones wealth differs among scholars. The Hanafi school believes it is not legitimate coercion whereas the majority of scholars carry the opinion that when one is coerced with all his wealth or a great amount of wealth, it is accounted as coercion. (Hashiyat ad Dasuqi 2/368, Rawdat at Talibin 8/59, al Mughni 7/120)   

When it comes to making a decision and choosing among the given permits Ibni Taymiyyah (ra) states his choice is the decision of the majority which is the view of the Hanbalee. Ibni Taymiyyah states: “I examined all the madhabs. I saw that as the type of coercion changed; the coercion changed. The coercion which a permit of kufr is given is much different from other types of coercion such as hiba (gifts donated freely). In another statement Ahmad says statements are not coercion, coercion only occurs when tortured, beaten or tied.” (Ibnu Ateeq, Ad-Difa', 30)
 
According to most scholars evidence is the ayah which descended regarding Ammar ibn Yasir a companion of RasulAllah (saw). Ammar ibn Yasir did not make a statement of kufr until he had been tortured by the mushrik. It is known that this was the reason the ayah was descent.

“But say not - for any false thing that your tongues may put forth,- "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so as to ascribe false things to Allah. For those who ascribe false things to Allah, will never prosper.” (Surah An Nahl 16; 116)

Ibn Hajar states: “It is famously known that this ayah was about Ammar ibn Yasir. The following has been narrated by Abu Ubayda ibn Muhammad ibn Ammar bin Yasir: “The mushrik had captured Ammar and they tortured him until he did what they asked him to do. When he made a complaint to RasulAllah (saw) about this RasulAllah (saw) said: “how do you find your heart?” Ammar replied: “It is in a state filled with iman”. Upon this RasulAllah (saw) said: “If they do it to you again, do as you did before.” This hadith is mursal and the rawi of it are trusted. Taberee had related this hadith, Abdurrazzak related from him and ibn Humayd related from Abdurrazzak.
 
Ibn Kathir explains that this was because they preferred the life of this world to the Hereafter; and so it was only for the state of this world that they renounced their faith. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Nahl 106) At-Tabari explains that the meaning of the verse is that those who are forced to say a word of disbelief, with their tongues, while their hearts are reassured with faith, are free of disbelief. They are certain of truth, and faithful to their resolve. But whoever disbelieves in Allah, after faith, brings the Wrath of Allah upon himself, and will pay a terrible price for his choice of disbelief, rejection of faith, and willing submission to the unbelievers. (Tafsir at-Tabari Nahl 106)

Bukhari (ra) without explaining but by implying had pointed out the limitation of the permit given while under coercion. This takes place in his Sahih in the book of coercion under the section “The preference of beatings, death and vulgarity over kufr.” Three hadith are narrated here. The first one is a hadith related as marfuu by Anas: “From whomever these three things are found he has found the taste of iman… (Third) He who dislikes the return to kufr just as he, dislikes being thrown in fire.” In this hadith a gesture is made pointing out that the return to kufr is equal to jumping in fire; kufr is equal to destruction. In that case as most have agreed a permit to kufr is only given when there is fear of destruction or fear of losing life. The second hadith was narrated by Said ibn Zayd: “I have spent such days Umar would tie me up because I was Muslim.” Before Umar bin Khattab became Muslim just because he tied up Said ibn Zayd did not allow him to convert from Islam. This example shows that imprisonment and being tied up may not account as coercion like the opinion of Shaafee. Afterwards in a narration excepted as marfuu Bukhari narrates the Habbab incident: “Before you a person would be taken. A hole in the ground would be shovelled out for him and he would be put in into the hole. A saw would be put on his head and his head would be cut into two pieces; he would be combed with metal combs and his flesh would be separated from his bones. Still this would not turn him from his deen.” In this hadith there is praise in this hadith by RasulAllah (saw) to those who choose death and torture over kufr. With this hadith Bukhari points out that the Muslim who chooses death over kufr will be rewarded greater.

Ikrah is considered to be when the life of one is in clear and present danger and even death is certainly near. It is a form of specific darurah (vitalness), that present danger is certain of and the possibility of present death is certain of. The meaning of darurah is defined by ash-Shatibi in al-Muwafaqat (2/8) to be "...what is necessary for the fulfillment of one's interests - worldly and religious - in the sense that, if such things were absent, his worldly interests would not be fulfilled. Rather, they would be ruined and destroyed, thus, affecting the person's welfare, keeping him from success and comfort, and resulting in clear loss."

In order of importance darurah is listed to be: "...religion, life, intellect, progeny, and wealth." (also Al-I’tisam, II, 50)

In 'Nadhariyyat ad-Darurah ash-Shar'iyyah' (p. 67): "ad-Darurah is when a person finds himself in a situation of danger or extreme hardship, such that he fears the occurrence of harm to his life, bodily organs, honor, or wealth. The specific implications of this are that he is allowed, in such a case, to commit that which is normally forbidden, abandon that which is normally obligatory, or delay an obligation from its proper time of performance - all in order to repel any harm that he feels will affect him, within the predefined principles of the Shari'ah."
 
Up to this point we have tried to explain and provide evidence of the conditions and limitation of the permit of kufr. As seen with the alliance of the scholars the reality is the self-control of an individual must be taken from him for coercion to be coercion. It is not coercion if a person is only taken into custody or put under arrest. The disagreements they have are regarding what it is that takes ones self-control from him. Therefore being taken into custody or being put in prison is not coercion sufficient for one to use the permit of kufr. In today’s modern world many Islamic groups and their leaders indoctrinate their members and followers with the belief they should lie and deny. They suggest making statements of patriotism, republicanism and making clear their loyalty to the democratic state. They name this method of indoctrinating “method of movement (!)”. However it is not so hard to see that such actions which take place while still in possession of self-control are actions of clear kufr.
 
Such statements can only be made while under coercion if it is going to free an individual from such coercion. Ibn Qudamah states: "A person is not considered under coercion until he experiences some level of torture, such as being beaten, choked, or having his feet tied together and twisted..." ('al-Mughni' 7/383)

Regarding this matter the following anecdote about Ahmad ibn Hanbal (ra) may enlighten us. During the fitnah of the belief the Qur’an had been created, great scholar Ahmad ibn Hanbal had become ill from the torture he had been put through and he was resting. Yahya b. Muin again another scholar from those days visited Ahmad ibn Hanbal and gave him a salute. Ahmad ibn Hanbal did not accept his salute and did not reply. Yahya b Muin was one of those who had fallen into fitnah and had stated the Qur’an to be created. He understood the reason his salutation was not accepted and reminded Ahmad ibn Hanbal of Ammar b. Yasir and uttered the following from the Qur’an: “Any one who, after accepting faith in Allah, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.” (Surah An Nahl 16; 106) Upon this Ahmad ibn Hanbal turned his face away from him. Yahya b. Muin said: “This man does not accept apologies.” When he was about to leave Ahmad ibn Hanbal said the following: “He reads me the hadith of Ammar b. Yasir. Yet Ammar b. Yasir heard the kuffar bad mouth RasulAllah (saw) when passing by. He opposed them. They beat and tortured him. To free himself from them he said what they had asked him to say. However these people heard they will be beat if they did not say as they were told without being tortured. They are not in the same position Ammar b. Yasir was. Therefore they cannot use this incident as evidence for their actions. Yahya b. Muin admitted to he was right and stated: “I have not seen a man on earth more scholarly than him.” As seen in this incident the scholars do not take incidents of fake threat as coercion they evaluate only that of which is believed to surely take place as coercion.

[Muferrid Muhammed Selefy]

Another matter regarding coercion is that of which an individual is forced to exploit the jama'ah of Islam and put other Muslims in danger. Is there a permit given for this and is it considered coercion? If we summarise the information and evidence given in the books of fiqh we come across with the following information:

With ijmaa even while under coercion it is not lawful to kill a fellow Muslim. (Qurtubi, Tafsir, an-Nahl 106) Therefore with comparison it should not be permitted to pave the way and denounce or help another so a Muslim fellow is killed. No matter how severely one is  tortured, one is  never allowed to take another life that is forbidden for him to take, and one is to put up with whatever hardship he is put through in order to avoid trading his life for someone else's. Permission has not been given for adultery or homosexuality even under coercion. (Ibn Qayyim 'at-Turuq al-Hikmiyyah' 71) Because such acts are actions which others can be unjustly treated and this matter becomes a matter of abusing the rights of others, the violation of the honour of others.

In order to rid ones own trouble a Muslim has no right to put his fellow Muslim through trouble. While it is not right for a Muslim to treat his fellow Muslim unjustly the matter of a Muslim stealing from a fellow Muslim or squandering his goods is a matter of dispute; while some scholars approve, others disapprove.

Regarding the matter of hurting or taking an organ of a Muslim such as cutting the hand of a fellow Muslim we come across the following information from the books of the Hanafi: If a Muslim is threatened with something greater than having his hand cut he may cut his hand. However if he is threatened with cutting his hand or something of a lesser threat in such case he is not allowed to do so.

The following is a statement from Fatawa Hindiya: “If a person is threatened to cut his hand or else with death he may cut his hand. And the qisas (retaliation) is upon the forcing party. Yet, if he is forced to take his own life and he does kill himself in this case no retaliation is to take place.” However there are scholars to account this to be haraam.
 
Regarding the matter of cursing and slander the following is found in the Hanafi sources: In Kuhistanee the following is stated “If a Muslim is forced with great coercion to curse, he may curse. And if he is to be forced with great coercion he may slander.” In Tatarhaniya the following is stated: “Is it not seen that if an individual put in coercion and is forced to slander Allah, he has even been given permission to do so. Therefore slandering a Muslim must come before all else. On the other hand he has emphasized (taliq) the slandering of a Muslim with a polite request while regarding the slandering of Allah he has not emphasized with any type of request. The reason for this is that when a person is threatened with loss, the slandering of Allah is permitted with established proof. However the slandering of a fellow Muslim is only permitted with indication from proof. Imam Muhammad stated: “It is not seen that even if one has been threatened with loss to slander Muhammad (saw) inshaAllah if he is to slander him this will be permitted. However if he is to be patient and not slander until he dies he will be major in the sight of Allah and this is more rewarding.”

The opinion of the Hanafi seems for fitting with qiyas, however abusing the rights of another Muslim becomes another problem here therefore it must be thought over carefully. We have not been able to find information regarding this from other scholars however while the Malikee and Zahiree madhabs do not permit squandering the belonging of fellow Muslims under coercion other scholars do allow such act. This matter can also be resolved by qiyas (comparison).
 
When it comes to the matter of revealing secrets of the Islamic jama'ah it is an established truth that this is an act which is originally haraam but according to the niyyah and state of the individual it is an action which can become kufr. The famous story of Hateeb Ibn Abi Baltea Clarification of the doubts about the Hatib (ra)'s incident provides evidence for this matter.

The beginning of Surat Mumtahina was sent about this person. Allah (swt) states: “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that do this has strayed from the Straight Path. If they were to get the better of you, they would behave to you as enemies, and stretch forth their hands and their tongues against you for evil: and they desire that ye should reject the Truth. Of no profit to you will be your relatives and your children on the Day of Judgment: He will judge between you: for Allah sees well all that ye do.” (Surah Al Mumtahina 60; 1-3)

The Mufassir stated the following: “This ayah descended concerning Hateeb b. Abi Baltea. Sara the slave of Abi Amr b. Sayfee b. Hasheem Abdi Manaf had come to Madinah from Makkah. RasulAllah (saw) was preparing for the conquest of Makkah. RasulAllah said to Sara: “Did you come as a Muslim?” She replied: “No.” Upon this RasulAllah (saw) said: “What is it that brought you here?” She replied: “We are from the same family, the same tribe and freed slaves. I am very much in need. I am informing you of my state so you will give me some things and cloth me.” RasulAllah (saw) replied: “What is your place with the youth of Makkah?” The lady was a singer. She replied: “After the event of Badr no one has asked me for anything. RasulAllah urged the sons of Abdulmuttalib and the sons of Muttalib give her some things. They gave her some things, clothed her and sent her off. Meanwhile Hateeb b. Abi Beltea came to the lady and gave her a letter to present to the people of Makkah. In return for this letter he also gave her ten dinars. The letter contained the following: “RasulAllah wants you. Protect yourselves from him.” Sara set off and began her journey back. Jibril came and informed the Prophet what Hateeb had done.

RasulAllah sent Ali, Ammar, Zubayr, Talha, Miqdaat b. al Aswad and Abu Marsad to catch up to Sara. The all had horses. RasulAllah told them: “Go all the way to the Hah Garden, you will find a woman there. She has a letter Hateeb wrote to the mushrik. Take that letter from her and let her go her own way. If she does not give you the letter, have her head.” Upon this they left and caught up to her at this garden. They said to her: “Where is the letter?” She swore she did not have it. They searched her belongings but did not find anything. They intended to leave. Ali said: “By Allah, RasulAllah did not lie. We will not deny.” He took out his sword and turned to the woman and said: “Take out the letter or else I will strip you and cut your throat.” The woman who saw the seriousness took the letter out of her braid. She had hidden the letter in her braided hair. They let her go and returned to RasulAllah with the letter. RasulAllah sent a man to Hateeb. When Hateeb came he showed him the letter and said: “Do you know me?” “Yes” he replied. RasulAllah asked: “What forced you to do such action?” He answered: “Ya RasulAllah, by Allah since the day I became Muslim I did not deny and with my sincerity I have not been unfaithful to you. I have not loved my mushrik relatives since I have left them. However there is not a muhajir (immigrant) who does not have a person to trust they will prevent anything bad happening from their tribe in Makkah. I am the most poor among them. My family left there are homeless. I was afraid. I wanted them to have my support. And I know that Allah will sent harshness upon them. My letter would not have protected them from any type of suffering.”

Ubaydullah b, Rafi said: “I heard Ali say the following: “RasulAllah sent me, Zubayr, Miqdad and said: “Go all the way to the Hah Garden. There is a woman there with a letter.” We left right away. We were racing our horses with one another. We saw that we had reached the woman. To the woman we said: “Take out the letter.” She replied: “I do not have a letter.” We told her to definitely take out the letter. Or else we would strip her out of her clothes, upon this she took the letter our of the braided strands of her hair. We brought it back to RasulAllah. The following was in that letter: “Hateeb b. Abi Beltea was notifying some of the actions of RasulAllah to the mushrik in Makkah.” RasulAllah stated: “Ya Hateeb what is this?” Hateeb replied: “Do not rush any thoughts about me regarding this matter. I am a man adjacent to Quraysh. But I am not from them. All of the Muhajir have relatives in Makkah. They protect their men their. I do not have any close ones in Makkah. I wanted to lend a hand of help to those from my relatives who are there. By Allah, I did not do an action of complaint of my deen. After Islam I did not show consent to kufr.” RasulAllah said: “He tells the truth.” Umar said: “Let me go Ya RasulAllah and have the neck of this munafiq.” RasulAllah replied: “He was at Badr. How do you know, maybe Allah looked upon those who were there and said: “Do as you wish I have forgiven you.” Upon this these ayah were revealed.” (Bukhari; Muslim; Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi; Nasai; Wahidi, Asbab-i Nuzul)

If this is so, what is the ruling when under coercion? In this case Hateeb (ra) is not in a situation of coercion, he just wanted to save his family from a possible disaster. In reality if the close ones of an individual are being threatened this accounts as coercion. Sarahsee (490/1097) from among the scholars of the Hanafi had accepted an agreement of sale valid and has stated this would be accepted as threat under the principle of istihsan. The reason for this is because torture which will be done to the family member of an individual could be more painful than torture done to him. (Serahsee, Al-Mabsuut, 24/93). Ibn Qudamah esplained it by stating: If a person is threatened with the torture of his child, it was said that this is not a type of compulsion because the harm is affecting someone else, but it is more appropriate to regard it as compulsion, because that is worse for him than taking his wealth. Threatening to take his wealth is regarded as compulsion, so this (threatening to torture his child) is the same. (al-Mughni 7/292) However this with no doubt is valid only with a close threat. If there had been a close threat to the family of Hateeb if the only method was to send this letter to the mushrik in such case coercion may have been discussed. Yet in the ayahs Hateeb is condemned and it is evident that Allah has condemned his attitude by the following statement: “Of no profit to you will be your relatives and your children on the Day of Judgment: He will judge between you: for Allah sees well all that ye do.” The only excuse RasulAllah (saw) accepts from Hateeb is his word that he did not do what he did do to his predilection towards the mushrik. Because it was done with such intention, the ayah which begun with “O ye who believe!” certified and exonerated his iman. However it is clear that what he had done was haraam.
 
The matter which relates to us is if a Muslim is allowed to give the secrets of the Islamic jama'ah when he is placed in a situation where his family or he is threatened by the officials of the taghout. Unfortunately we do come across incidents as such from time to time. The system of taghout in simple words is a repulsive order of tyranny. In order to continue its status vulgar methods are used and in order to get what is asked for they do not hesitate to use threat and torture. The mushrik system deserves to be cursed just for this. However in the past few years the EU norms declare the use of torture is against human rights etc. But statement of the taghout as such can not be trusted. Therefore a Muslim must always be prepared for torments as such.
 
A Muslim in such position must evaluate the loss and gain and must keep the following ayah in mind “The Believers are but a single Brotherhood” (Surah Al Hujuraat 49; 10) If the loss to him will be lesser than the loss to his fellow brothers he must not speak. The opinions of the scholars we have mentioned above do in fact guide us to this opinion. However if the loss will be greater in such case it is a matter of conflict. In a case as such another matter becomes an issue. Would it be permitted to give out information of the jama'ah which will dissolve or disintegrate because of the information leak even under torture?

Some writers of this modern age assert that it would not be permitted and that it would be accounted as kufr. However we need to pause for a minute and review the situation. In this case this person is under coercion and is tortured he may take action believing it is permitted because he is under coercion. RasulAllah (saw) states “Lift (do not go through) the punishment due to uncertainties.” (Abu Dawud; Tirmidhi) The most sever punishment without doubt is that which is the punishment of murtad which results in death and consequently the accusation of takfir. For this reason it has not been found appropriate for a person under torture to be given the hukm takfir.
 
Regarding the status of it being haraam we can take a look at it in two separate sections: The first of these being evaluating the situation as abusing the right of a fellow Muslim. Usually abusing the right of a fellow Muslim does become the matter itself. The hukm we have discussed about above will in such case take place. However if we evaluate the situation only as abusing the right of Allah, this could be permitted. The reason is because while under coercion there is evidence of abandoning the right of Allah. Our opinion is that this matter is a matter of both the right of a fellow Muslim and the right of Allah. Also avoiding matters of suspicion are necessary; especially, if this is regarding a jama'ah of Islam. In this case what needs to be done is to keep quite or direct them to a different location with misleading information and unimportant detail.

[Muferrid Muhammed Selefy]

TAQIYYAH (Dissimulation):

Literally al taqiyyah is to safeguard; to defend; to fear; piety (because it saves one from the displeasure of Allah).

Nifaq and Taqiyyah are opposite to one other and can never be found in the same place: Nifaq (hypocrisy) is the belief against Islam in heart but declaration of Islam in words. Taqiyyah is the correct belief of Islam by heart but declaration of anti-Islamic belief in words.

Ibn Abbas (ra) stated: “Taqiyyah can only occur by tongue. Whoever is forced to make a statement that is haraam or kufr, with the condition that his heart is filled with iman he should make such statement with tongue only. Taqiyyah is done only by tongue.” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Abi Hatim) Ibn Abbas (ra) also stated: “Taqiyyah, consists of making a haraam or kufr statement by tongue with a heart filled with iman. However an act of murder by hand should not occur or kufr and haraam acts should not be performed. There is no excuse in this matter.” (Ibn Jarir, Ibn Manzur, Bayhaqi, Hakeem made this riwayah and stated it to be sahih.)    

Ibn Mas'ud has stated: “Taqiyyah is saying a thing with the tongue while your heart remains reassured in faith.” (Tafsir at-Tabari Al-i Imran 28) Abu al-'Aaliyyah said: 'Taqiyah is in word but not in deed.' (Tafsir at-Tabari Al-i Imran 28; İbni Abi Hatim) Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalaani said, 'Taqiyah is to keep what is in the heart (belief) from the public view.' (Fath al-Bari, 12/314) Sayyid Qutb said, 'Taqiyah is with the tongue but is not bonded to the heart, nor by deed. In it there is no license for affection of the believer for the disbeliever; so no believer may come to the assistance of a disbeliever, as this is not permitted; for there is no deception before Allah.' (In the Shade of Qur’an, Al-i Imran 28)

Al-Baghawi had stated: "Allah has prohibited the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends and protectors, and from disregarding the disbelievers' true nature; except when the disbelievers should dominate over them and force them to accept them, or if the Muslim, finding himself among them, is in fear of them and so influences them with his tongue, while his heart maintains the faith. Thus, he defends himself but stops short of endangering the life or property of Muslims or of exposing them to danger. Taqiyyah is only permitted on fear of death, and with a purity of intention. Allah has said, (Except him who is forced thereto and whose heart is at rest with Faith) (16:106). Even though this is a license, for one who is patient, even unto death, his reward would be great indeed.” (Tafsir al-Baghawi)

Ibn Qayyim said, "It is well known that Taqiyyah is not a license to take the disbelievers as intimates. Indeed, when association with the disbelievers was forbidden, it became necessary to take them as enemies and to distance one self from them. One should declare his enmity for them, at every opportunity, but if he should fear reprisals from them, then he may hide his enmity for them, although Taqiyyah does not mean to be in association with them." ("Bada'i' al-Fawa'id", 3/69.)

Ibn Jarir at-Tabari in discussion of the verse said, (except if you fear a danger from them), “except if you find yourself under their authority and fear for your lives.' So you may show them friendship with your tongues, but guard your enmity for them secretly and do not encourage them in their disbelief nor assist them against any Muslim.” (Tafsir at-Tabari Ali-Imran 28)

In Tafsir al Jalalayn it the following is stated “Unless you protect yourselves against them, as a safeguard (tuqātan, ‘as a safeguard’, is the verbal noun from taqiyyatan), that is to say, [unless] you fear something, in which case you may show patronage to them through words, but not in your hearts” (Tafsir al-Jalalayn 3/28)

Mu'adh b. Jabal and Mujahid had stated the following: “Before Islam had strengthened when it was just born taqiyyah was practiced. Today Allah has strengthened Islam such that there is no need left for taqiyyah.” (Qurtubi Tafsir, Al-I Imran 28) So whenever the same conditions come accros, taqiyyah will be permisible. Al-Hasan said, "The Taqiyyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.'' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Al-i Imran 28; Qurtubi, Tafsir, Al-i Imran 28; Bukhari)

If one is forced in extraordinary circumstances to resort to concealment of faith (taqiyyah) in order to save his life, this concealment should remain within reasonable limits. The most one is permitted to do without causing loss of life and property to other Muslims is jeopardizing either the interest of Islam or the Muslim community as a whole. One must never allow saving one’s life to lead to the propagation of unbelief at the expense of Islam and to the dominance of the kuffar over Muslims. Thus we come to the conclusion that if someone is in such state that if he, resorted to taqiyyah, others would be misled into un-Islamic beliefs and acts, then the basic principle demands that he should sacrifice his life and save others from going astray.

Permission is only for befriending by tongue not by heart or act. Razi prescribed certain rules concerning taqiyyah under this verse, which are listed below:

“Know that taqiyyah carries many hukm. Some of them are as follows:

The first Rule: Takiyyah can occur when a Muslim is frightened with his life and wealth and when he answers them softly with his tongue. This will be when he does not show enmity to them with his tongue. In fact it is permissible that he makes statements to show love and befriending with his tongue. However this will be by hiding his hatred and by blaming indirectly with all that he states. The reason for this is that the effect of taqiyyah is only on the outside and not in the state of the heart.

Second Rule: It is better that the Muslim clarify iman and haqq even though he is permitted to perform taqiyyah. The evidence for this is the Musaylima incident mentioned below.            

Third Rule: Taqiyyah is allowed in matters related to manifestation of friendship or enmity; and it is also allowed in matters connected to professing (their) religion. But it is certainly not allowed in matters which affect other persons, like murder, fornication, usurpation of property, perjury, slander of married women or informing the unbelievers about the weak points in the Muslims' defense.

Fourth Rule: The Qur’anic verse apparently shows that taqiyyah is allowed with dominant unbelievers. But according to the madhhab of Imam Shafi'i (ra) if the condition between (various sects of) the Muslims resembles the condition between the Muslims and the polytheists, then taqiyyah (from the Muslims too) is allowed for the protection of one's life.

Fifth Rule: Taqiyyah is allowed for protection of life. The question is whether it is allowed for the protection of property; possibly that too may be allowed, because the Prophet (saw) has said: `The sanctity of a-Muslim's property is like the sanctity of his blood'; and also he (saw) has said: `Whoever is killed in defense of his property, is a martyr'; and also because man greatly needs his property; if water is sold at exorbitant price, wudhu' does not remain wajib and one may pray with tayammum to avoid that small loss of property; so why should not this principle be applied here? And Allah knows better.

Sixth Rule: Mujahid has said that this rule (of taqiyyah) was valid in the beginning of Islam, because of the weakness of the believers; but now that the Islamic government has got power and strength, it is not valid. But `Awfi has narrated from al-Hasan (al-Basri) that he said: `Taqiyyah is allowed to the Muslims upto the day of resurrection.' And this opinion is more acceptable because it is wajib to keep off all types of harm from one's self as much as possible." (Razi, Tafsir, Ali-Imran 28)

And if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. (al-Maidah 32)
 
Every Muslim is bound to save lives from unlawful destruction, whether it is some one else's or his own: “…and make not your own hands contribute to (your) destruction.” (al-Baqarah 2/195)

When individuals are in such situation that they must perform an evil act, they should choose the lesser evil act over the greater evil act. Or if one is forced to destroy or damage one of his two possessions, surely he would damage or destroy the lesser expensive item to save the more precious one.

Razi says commenting on the events of the Prophet Musa (as) and Khidr(as), : “When one is confronted by two damaging alternatives, it is wajib to bear the lesser one in order to ward off the greater one; and this was the principle followed in the three actions (done by Khidr).” (Razi, Tafsir, Kahf 82)

Choosing the lesser of two evils is an illustration of this. Thus Shu'aib (as) had to choose between returning to disbelief or exile from his homeland:
 
"The chieftains of his people, who were scornful, said: Surely we will drive thee out, O Shu'eyb, and those who believe with thee, from our township, unless ye return to our religion. He said: Even though we hate it? We should have invented a lie against Allah if we returned to your religion after Allah hath rescued us from it. It is not for us to return to it unless Allah our Lord should (so) will. Our Lord comprehendeth all things in knowledge. In Allah do we put our trust. Our Lord! Decide with truth between us and our folk, for Thou art the best of those who make decision." (Al-Araf 7/88-89)

For this reason, it is not permitted in such cases to accept such coercion (to return to disbelief). This is also supported by another verse: “And among men is he who says: We believe in Allah; but when he is persecuted in (the way of) Allah he thinks the persecution of men to be as the chastisement of Allah; and if there come assistance from your Lord, they would most certainly say: Surely we were with you. What! is not Allah the best knower of what is in the breasts of mankind.” (Al-Ankaboot 29/10)

“In regards to worldly matters to have good relations with the kuffar… This has not been restricted to the mu'min.” (Razi Tafsir, Al-i Imran 28) A Muslim who lives in darul kufr, with a heart filled with iman and hatred to the kuffar he can make taqiyyah with his tongue towards the kuffar to make them believe he is befriending them and not the enemy. “It has also been said that if the mu’min is living among the kuffar, if he is afraid he will be hurt, while his heart is filled with iman and is mutmain he can apply to manage them with his tongue.” (Qurtubi Tafsir, Al-i Imran 28)

Abu Darda (ra) stated: “We will smile at some people but our hearts will curse them.” (Bukhari)

Aishah (ra) stated: “A man requested permission to enter and see RasulAllah (saw). At that time I was with RasulAllah (saw). About the man RasulAllah (saw) said: “What a bad man he is.” And allowed him to come in and treated him kindly. When the man left I said: “O RasulAllah you said he was a bad man why did you treat him kindly?” He replied: “O Aishah the worst among people is that who is not contravened.” (Bukhari, Tirmdhi)

“The scholars had made ittifaaq that for an individual to make a kufr statement his heart must be distant from what he stated and he must be content with indirect blames and hints. These indirect blames are like when he states “according to the kuffar” or by meaning another individual, he says “Muhammad is a liar” or he makes the statement with the intention of istifham-i inkariya (for example Muhammad is a liar?! (yeah right)). (Razi Tafsir, an Nahl 106) “The scholars of ilm must have stated: If an individual who is forced, is to make kufr statements it is only permissible that he makes this statements with insinuation. Only does he have the possibility to escape form lying and be rescued. If it is not stated as such he will be kafir. Because, the force will not have any effect over statements of insinuation. For example if a person is told to deny Allah he will make the statement by adding ‘ya’ (which will then mean I deny the one who wastes time). The same goes for the individual who is forced to deny the Nabi, he will say ‘I deny Nabiyyi’ with a 'shadda' which will mean he denies a high place. It will also mean something that is similar to a table made out of dried date branches. When he is making this statement he will mean one of these by heart, this way he will keep distant from kufr and the sin of kufr. If he makes this statement with a 'hamza' he will have meant he denies the one who brings news. He will mean anyone like Tulayha, or Musaylamatul kazzab. (Qurtubi, Tafsir, an Nahl 106)          

All scholars have agreed that without doubt those who are forced into kufr but choose death instead of permitted kufr under coercion will be awarded greater by Allah than those who have chosen to use the permit of kufr. “The scholars have made ittifaaq that the individual does not have to make kalimat kufr.” (Razi, Tafsir an Nahl 106) Taqiyyah is permission but not an ideal thing for a believer. He may not be accused but the most proper thing for a believer to do is to utter the truth in every condition.

In the tafsir of Al-Khaazin it is stated: "The coercion which the scholars have mentioned, excusing one from pronouncing a word of disbelief, is the threat of death, severe beating or torture. They are also agreed that someone who has been forced to declare disbelief may not make an open declaration, but he should resist this, giving his opponents the impression that he has already disbelieved. If they force him to announce this clearly and openly, then he may do so once his heart is fortified by faith, continuing to deny inwardly his declaration of disbelief. However, it is better for him to remain steadfast unto death. This is the lesson we have learned from Sumayyah and Yaasir, and from the persistence of Bilal before the torture of his inquisitors." (Tafsir al-Khaazin Nahl 106)

Khabbab bin Arat (ra) who was made to lie on embers of fire until the fire was extinguished by the melting of his fat, but he remained firm in his faith.

Bilal continued to refuse to renounce his state of Islam, even after a huge stone was placed on his chest, as he was pinned down in the blazing sun. His torturers demanded that he deny the unity of Allah, but he only replied, `Ahad, Ahad, i.e., `One, One', and then said, `By Allah, if I knew a word more odious to you than this I would say it!' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir Nahl 106)

Similarly, Habib Ibn Zayd al-Ansari, when Musaylimah al-Kadaab asked him, `Do you say Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah?' replied, 'Yes'. Musaylimah said, 'Do you testify that I am the messenger of Allah!' But Habib continued to say, `I do not hear this' as Musaylamah cut him up.' (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Nahl 106; Razi Tafsir, Al-i Imran 28; Ibni Abi Shaiba)

Also there is the example of the Companion, Abdullah Ibn Hudhaafa as-Sahami, who was taken hostage by the Romans. They brought him before their king who said, `Convert to Christianity, and I shall give you a share in my kingdom, and my daughter in marriage.' Abdullah replied, `If you were to give me all that you possess and all that the Arabs possess, I would not renounce the religion of Muhammad, for an instant.' The King said, `Then you are a dead man.' `So be it,' said Abdullah. So they took him and hung him up on a cross. Then marks men were called to shoot their arrows, grazing his hands and his legs, and all the while they called him to adopt their religion which he still refused to accept. Then they cut him down and brought a huge copper pot, which they heated up. They brought one of their Muslim prisoners whom they threw into the pot, before Abdullah; soon he was roasted to bones. They threatened him with the same, but still he refused. Then they brought a block and tackle, to winch him up and throw him in the pot, but when they were about to throw him in he began to weep. This sparked some hope in the heart of the king, so he asked him again, to which he replied, `I was crying because I have but one life to sacrifice for the Sake of Allah. O, that I should have as many as the numbers of hairs on my head, to be tormented in this way, for the Sake of Allah!

In another account he is said to have been imprisoned and deprived of food and drink for a number of days. But when they sent him wine and pork, he did not go near it. Then they summoned him and asked, 'Why don't you eat?' 'While it is allowed for me to eat this, I fear that I would then feel badly toward you for it,' he said. The king said: `kiss my head and I will set you free.' Abdullah said, `And you will also set free all the Muslim hostages.' The king agreed. Abdullah kissed his head and the king set him free with all the Muslim hostages he had taken. When he returned Omar ibn al- Khattab said, 'Every Muslim should kiss the head of Abdullah Ibn Hudhaafah, and I will be the first to do so. Then he rose and kissed his head. ("Tafsir Ibn Kathir Nahl 106; Ibn Asaqir, Ad Durru’l Mansur, V, 172)

However, while Taqiyyah provides an easy opportunity for the shaytan to deceive the individual who is weak or has some darkness in his heart, into some forbidden commerce with the enemies of Allah “And Allah warns you against Himself (His Punishment), and to Allah is the final return.” Allah warns about taking this as an easy solution and falling into the trap of allying oneself to the enemies of Allah. He warns individuals that it is unto Him that one is bound, so one would find his reward for what he had done in this world. One should not imagine that he could commit any grave error in this world, fooling himself or others that he could be spared Allah's Punishment in the Hereafter.

[Muferrid Muhammed Selefy]

Imam Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab said: “So Allah didn’t excuse anyone except the Mukrah whose heart is firm upon Iman and Tawhid.  And it’s known by necessity that it’s impossible to coerce someone to change his beliefs; but it’s possible to change his speech and actions.  So this verse has clarified that whoever utters a word of kufr, or does an action of kufr, then he has indeed become a kafir with the exclusion of the Mukrah who is firm upon Tawhid in his heart. And as mentioned in the verse, he becomes a kafir because he preferred the worldly life, not because he changed his beliefs.” (Tarikh ibn Ghannam)

Sulayman Ibn Abdullah Ibn Muhammad Ibn Abdulwahhab in his book “Ad-Dala’il Fī Hukm Muwalat Ahl Al-Ishrak” states the following regarding the mukrah (the one who is forced to commit kufr):

“Regarding such a person, no Muslim will doubt that such is a kafir from amongst the most severe of people in their enmity against Allah and RasulAllah (saw). And none is an exception to this, except the Mukrah. And he is the one who has been captured by the mushrik, and then they say to him ‘Commit kufr! Or do such and such… If you don’t, we will do such and such to you and kill you.’ Or they take him and torture him until he agrees with them. So it is permissible for him to agree with them with the tongue, while the heart is calm upon iman. And the ulama have formed consensus upon the fact that whoever utters a word of kufr jokingly, that he has disbelieved. So what would the ruling be regarding the one who displays kufr because of fear and greed for worldly gains? And I shall mention some of the evidences upon that, with the assistance of Allah and His aid…

Then he commented the following as the fourteenth evidence:

His (awj) Statement: ‘Whoever commits kufr against Allah after his iman (in Allah), excluding he who is forced there to while his heart is at rest with iman; but such who open their breasts to kufr then on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment. That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allah does not guide the kuffar.’ (An-Nahl 16/106-107)

So He (swt) has made a judgment that is unchangeable- That whosoever turns back from his deen to kufr, then he is a kafir. Regardless of whether he had the excuse of khawf (fear) for his life, wealth, family, or not; and whether he committed kufr both internally (with his heart) and externally (through actions), or only externally and not internally (i.e. only through actions, without the heart); and whether he committed kufr through his actions and his speech, or with just one of the two and not the other; and whether or not he committed kufr because of his desire to attain some worldly benefit from the mushrik; he becomes a kafir in each and every situation - except for the Mukrah. And he is the ‘Maghsub’ in our language. (Derived from “Ghasaba Yaghsibu”- which implies the meanings of “coerce, compel, force, extort, seize unlawfully, conquer, subdue, rape, etc.” And Maghsūb is the one who is “coerced, compelled, forced, subdued, etc.” According to classical linguists: “Someone who is forced to do something he dislikes by means of subjugation and compulsion.” See Lisān Al-‘Arab 3/526, and Al-Misbāh Al- Munīr 2/729)

So if a person is forced to do kufr; and it is said to him ‘Commit kufr! Or else we shall kill you- or we will torture you’; or the mushrik take him and beat him (severely) - and it is not possible for him to be rid (of this torment) except by agreeing with them; then it is permissible for him to agree with them externally (through actions or speech) - with the condition that his heart rests upon iman - meaning firmly established upon it and believing in it. But as for him agreeing with them with his heart, then he is a kafir- even if he is a Mukrah.

And what is apparent from the words of Imam Ahmad (ra), is that in the first situation, he would not be a Mukrah- unless the mushrik had tortured him. Because when Yahya Ibn Ma’een entered upon him while he was ill, he (Yahya) greeted him with Salam but he (Imam Ahmad) did not return his Salam. So Yahya began to appeal to him saying: “The hadith of ‘Ammar (O Ahmad)! And Allah said ‘excluding he who is forced thereto while his heart is at rest with iman’.” So Ahmad turned his face to the other side; so Yahya exclaimed, ‘He does not accept an excuse?!’ So when Yahya was leaving, Imam Ahmad said, ‘He uses the hadith of Ammar as proof, and the hadith of Ammar is ‘I passed by them (the mushrik) while they were insulting you (O RasulAllah) - so I forbid them (to say such things), so then they tortured me…’ And you, it is said to you ‘We want to torture you’.” (Meaning that ‘Ammar رضي الله عنه was actually tortured, and Imam Ahmad was saying that they themselves were not in that condition yet, but rather were merely being threatened. So mere threats are not a valid Ikrāh which would permit kufr.) So Yahya said, “I swear by Allah! I have not seen anyone under the surface of the sky of Allah who understands the deen of Allah better than you.’ (Ibn Abī Ya’la in his At-Tabaqat 1/404, and Ibn Al-Jawzī in Manāqib Al-Imam Ahmad on the authority of Abu Bakr Al-Marwathī 474)

Then He (jj) informed that those murtad, who opened their hearts to kufr, even though they are sure of the haqq; and that they said ‘We did not do this except because of khawf’- but still ‘on them is wrath from Allah, and theirs will be a great torment.’

Then He (swt) informed that the reason for this kufr and eternal punishment - is not because they believed in shirk; nor because of ignorance about tawhid; nor because of hatred for the deen; nor because of love for kufr- rather, the reason is merely because of a bit from the bits of the dunya (worldly life), which he preferred above the deen and the pleasure of the Lord of the Worlds.

So He (awj) said,

“That is because they loved and preferred the life of this world over that of the Hereafter. And Allah does not guide the kafir. (Al-Nahl 16/107-109)

So He (awj) has made takfīr of them. And He (swt) informed that He (awj) will not guide them, even though they try to excuse themselves with the plea that they (only did it out of) lust for the dunya.

Then He (jj) informed that these are murtad, because they preferred the life of the dunya rather than the akhirah; they are the ones whose hearts, hearing, and sight Allah has sealed, and that they are the oblivious ones; then He  (jj) informed (us of their) confirmed reality:

‘That in the Hereafter, they will be the losers.’ (An-Nahl 16/109)

[Muferrid Muhammed Selefy]

The ruling of the one who speaks alfazl kufr (word of kufr)

• 2- Whoever speaks alfazl kufr (word of kufr) is kafir in both Dhahir and in Batin

Shaykh (ra) said:

"1- Surely we know that without coercion whoever curses Allah and His Rasul moreover whoever utters alfadl kufr without coercion, makes a mockery of Allah, His Rasul and His ayah, this individual is in batin and in dhahir kafir. Whoever states an individual as such can sometimes be Mu’min in batin and kafir in dhahir, this individual will have made a statement that is necessarily known in deen as fasad (corruption). It is because surely Allah had mentioned the words of the kafir in the Qur’an and had given the hukm of kufr; He had informed that with this they deserve jahannam. If their words of kufr were on the same level of the mistake of those who is mistaken in their shahadah while they were witnessing or on the same level of the mistake of those who is mistaken in their uttering while they uttered; Allah would not have made them ahl jahannam with a probable shahadah of either correct or false. On the contrary He would have required punishing them with the condition that this shahadah is correct. This is like the following ayahs: “They do blaspheme who say: "Allah is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.” (al-Ma'idah 5/72-73) and other similar ayahs.

2- When the heart believes in the truthness of the Rasul and that He is an envoy, if it loves and exalts the Rasul; this condition will prevent from cursing and speaking evil of the Rasul. This is because it is not expected from them, other than that which is sourced from belittling and not appreciating. From this it is understood that the abstract belief that He is haqq, can only become iman by loving Him by heart, and exalting Him. (Fatawa 7/557)      

“The Hypocrites are afraid lest a Surah should be sent down about them, showing them what is (really passing) in their hearts. Say: "Mock ye! But verily Allah will bring to light all that ye fear (should be revealed). If thou dost question them, they declare (with emphasis): "We were only talking idly and in play." (At-Tawbah 9/64-65)

Ibn Taymiyyah (ra) stated following after he mentioned the above ayah: “This is an open nass regarding that it is kufr to mock Allah, His ayah and His Rasul. Above all, cursing is much precedence. This ayah shows whoever either serious or in jest attributes deficiency to the envoy of Allah (saw) will be kafir.” (As-Sarım'ul-Maslul, 28)

When we take notice of the expressions of Ibn Taymiyyah whoever expresses statements that are kufr, without coercion, about the individual who says ‘other than batin this individual will be kafir only in dhahir’ this individual will have said in deen ul Islam this individual will have said a word which is known necessarily as corruption (fasad). Now what would he say to the individual who says an individual as such is neither in dhahir nor in batin kafir?    

Ibn Taymiyyah states: “This is the madhhab of the general mass of the people of knowledge. Ibn Al-Munthir said: ‘The general mass of the people of knowledge have formed consensus upon that the hadd of the one who swears at the Prophet is execution. And from those who sad this was Malik, Al-Layth, Ahmad and Ishaq. And it is the madhhab of Ash-Shafii He said: “And it is mentioned from An-Nu’man: He is not killed, that which they are upon from shirk is greater.”And Abu Bakr Al-Farisi, from the companions of Ash-Shafii, mentioned the ijmaa of the Muslims upon that the hadd of the one who swears at the Prophet is execution, just as the hadd of he who swears at other than him is whipping. And this ijmaa that he mentioned is understood as being the ijmaa of the first generations from the Sahabah and the tabi'een, or that he meant with that, their ijmaa upon that the one who swears at the Prophet, it is obligatory to kill him if he is a Muslim. And likewise, Al-Qadhi ‘Iyad restricted it, as he said: ‘The ummah has formed consensus upon the execution of the one who belittles him or swears at him from the Muslims.’ And the Imam Is’haq Ibn Rahuyah, one of the great Imams, said: ‘The Muslims have formed consensus upon that whoever swears at Allah, or swears at His Messenger, or rejects anything from that which Allah (awj) revealed, or kills a Prophet from the Prophets of Allah (awj), that he is a kafir due to that, even if he accepts everything that Allah revealed.’ And Al-Khattabi said: ‘I do not know anyone from the Muslims who differs regarding the obligation of his execution.’ And Muhammad Ibn Sahnun said: ‘The scholars have formed consensus upon that the one who swears at the Prophet, belittling him, is a kafir, and the threat of the punishment of Allah is upon him, and his ruling according to the ummah is execution, and whoever doubts his kufr and his punishment, then he has disbelieved.’ And the clarification of the opinion regarding it is that the one who swears, if he is a Muslim, then he disbelieves and is executed, without any difference, and it is the madhhab of the four Imams and other than them. And those from the Imams who have mentioned the ijmaa upon that have past, like Ishaq Ibn Rahuyah and other than him. And if he is a dhimmi, then he is executed also in the madhhab of Malik and the people of al-Madinah, and the mentioning of their phrasings will come. And it is the madhhab of Ahmad and the fuqaha of the Hadith. And Ahmad clearly stated that in many places. Hanbal said: ‘I heard Abu Abdullah saying: Everyone who swears at the Prophet or belittles him, whether he is a Muslim or a kafir, then execution is upon him. And I see that he should be executed and not given istitabah.’ He said: And I heard Abu Abdullah saying: ‘Everyone who breaks the ahd and innovates an innovation in Islam like this, then I see execution upon him, they were not given the ahd and the dhimmah upon this.’ And likewise, Abu As-Saqr said: I asked Abu Abdullah about a man from the people of dhimmah who swears at the Prophet, what is upon him? He said: If the Bayyinah is established upon him, then whoever swears at the Prophet is executed, whether he is a Muslim or a kafir.’ Both narrated by Al-Khallal. And he said in the narration of Abdullah and Abu Talib, and he was asked about someone who swears at the Prophet, he said: ‘He is executed.’ It was said to him: ‘Are there ahadith regarding it?’ He said: ‘Yes. ahadith, from them the hadith of the blind man who killed the woman. He said: I heard her swearing at the Prophet. And the hadith of Husayn, that Ibn Umar said: Whoever swears at the Prophet is executed. And Umar Ibn Abdul-Aziz said: He is executed. And that is because whoever swears at the Prophet is a murtadd, and no Muslim swears at the Prophet.’ Abdullah added: ‘I asked my father about one who swears at the Prophet is he given istitabah?’ He said: ‘Execution has become obligatory upon him, and he is not given istitabah. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid killed a man who swore at the Prophet and did not give him istitabah.’ Both narrated by Abu Bakr in ‘Ash-Shafii’ And in the narration of Abu Talib: ‘Ahmad was asked about the one who swears at the Prophet. He said: He is executed. He has nullified the ahd.’ And Harb said: ‘I asked Ahmad about a man from the People of dhimmah who swears at the Prophet. He said: He is executed if he swears at the Prophet.’ Both narrated by Al-Khallal, and he clearly stated this in other than these answers. So all of his sayings are clear statements regarding the obligation of executing him, and in that he has nullified the ahd, and there is nothing from him different than this. And likewise was mentioned from all of his companions, the earlier and the later of them, they did not disagree on that.’ Surely if the individual who curses is Muslim he will be made takfir with this and without doubt will be killed. This is the view of the four imam and others.” (as-Sarım'ul-Maslul, 5)

"Verily insulting Allah (awj) and insulting RasulAllah (saw) is kufr, outwardly and inwardly. And it is all same if the one who does these insults, believes that this is haraam, or if he believes this action is permissible, or if it is negligence in his creed. (it is always considered kufr) This is the madhhab of the fuqaha of all the ahl-sunnah, those who proclaim that iman is statements and actions." (as-Sarım'ul-Maslul, 451)

“…And from the ways of Allah is that in regards to those who harm Allah and His Messenger whom the believers cannot punish, then Allah Himself takes sufficient revenge on behalf of His Messenger. For example, the story of Allah’s one-by-one destruction of those who mocked RasulAllah (saw) is well known, as has been mentioned by the scholars of history and tafsir. They were a small group of the heads of Quraysh, including al-Walid bin Mughirah, al-‘As bin Wa’il, al-Aswadan bin ‘Abd al-Mutallib, Ibn ‘Abd Yaghuth, and al-Harith bin Qays. Also, RasulAllah (saw) wrote to Kisra (the king of Persia) and Caesar (the king of Rome), while neither of them had entered into Islam. However, Caesar respected the letter of RasulAllah (saw), and treated his ambassador in a fine manner, so his kingdom was kept for him, and this is why it was said: ‘His kingdom remains for him among his descendents until today.’ As for Kisra, he tore the letter of RasulAllah (saw) into pieces and mocked him. As a result, Allah caused Kisra to be killed soon after, and caused his kingdom to be torn into pieces, and there did not remain for any of the future Kisras any kingdom, and this – and Allah knows best – is in accordance with the phrase ‘the flesh of the scholars is poisonous.’ So, how would it be with the flesh of the Prophets (saw)? And in the ‘Sahih,’ it is narrated: ‘Allah (awj) says: ‘Whoever declares his enmity to a close ally of Mine, then I declare war on him.’ So, how would it be in the case of the one who declares his enmity to the Prophets? Whoever Allah declares war upon, then he will no doubt be fought! If you read the stories of the Prophets mentioned in the Qur’an, then you will find that their people were destroyed the moment they began harming their Prophets by throwing at them the nastiest of words and actions. This is how the Children of Israel had humiliation thrown upon them, and this is how they earned the anger of Allah, and they had nobody to help them against Him – all of this, because they killed the Prophets without any right, in addition to their disbelief, as Allah mentioned in His Book. And you will not find anybody who ever harmed a Prophet from the Prophets - and did not repent from this – except that Allah would strike him with some type of calamity or disaster soon after. And we have previously mentioned the efforts of the Muslims in hastening their punishment of the disbelievers, who insulted RasulAllah (saw), and we mentioned many different examples of this, and this is a wide door of discussion that cannot be mentioned here in its entirety. An example of this is what has been mentioned regarding a huge group of the Muslims in our times, when they were laying siege to the fortresses and cities of the Romans on the Syrian coast. They said: ‘We used to lay siege to the castle or city for a month or more without being able to penetrate it. As soon as we would hear that its people began insulting RasulAllah (saw) and attacking his honour, our victory over them was suddenly and miraculously made quick and easy, and would not come beyond a day or two afterwards. The gates of the area would open, and we would proceed to attack them severely. We would be extremely happy with this speedy victory when we heard their slander of him (peace be upon him), despite our hearts being filled with rage because of what they had said.’ And similar accounts were narrated from our trustworthy companions from Morocco, as their incidents with the Christians there were similar. So, from the ways of Allah is that He (jj) sometimes punishes His enemies with a torment of His own, and He (jj) sometimes does so at the hands of His believing servants.” (as-Sarim al-Maslul ‘ala Shatim ar-Rasul 2/233)

Imam Malik ibn Anas (ra) said “Any Muslim who curses RasulAllah (saw) is killed without being asked to repent.” (Sahnoon ‘al Mudawwanatul Kubra’, Al U’tbi ‘al U’tbiyyah’, Qadi I’yaad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’) Imam Ibn Abi Zayd al Qayrawaani (ra) said “If someone speaks disrespectfully of RasulAllah (saw) he should be put to death without accepting his repentance. If someone from a tolerated class speaks disrespectfully of him, aside from simply expressing his disbelief, he should be put to death unless he becomes a Muslim.” (Al Qayrawani ‘ar Risaalah’ 173) Imam Ibn Hazm (ra) said "A person who insults Allah (swt) or any of His prophets is a disbeliever and must be executed without mercy or compensation." (Ibn Hazm 'al Muhalla' XI, 2308) Imam Ibn al Qaasim said “Anyone who curses him, reviles him, finds fault with him or disparages him is killed. The community says that he should be killed just like the dualist. Allah made it obligatory to respect the Prophet and be dutiful to him.” He also said “Any Jew or Christian who curses the Prophets in any way other than that by which he normally disbelieves is beheaded unless he becomes Muslim.” (Al U’tbi ‘al Utibiyyah’, Qadi Iyad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’ 374; 439) Imam Sahnoon said about those who curse RasulAllah (saw) “This is apostacy in exactly the same way as zandaqah is. Therefore there is some dispute about whether such a person should be called to repent (as a Muslim) or whether he is a disbeliever. Is he to be killed by a hadd punishment (as a Muslim) or for disbelief?” (Qadi Iyad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’ 374) Imam ibn al Mundhir Qadi I’yad said “Abu Bakr ibn al Mundhir said that the bulk of the people of knowledge agree that whoever curses RasulAllah (saw) is killed.” (Qadi Iyad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’ [p.373]) Shaykh Abu’l Hasan al Qaabisi said “When a person’s curse (of a prophet) is proven and then he repents of what he has done and shows his repentance, he is killed for the curse as a hadd punishment.” (Qadi Iyad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’ 402) Qaadi I’yad said “Know that all who curse Muhammad (saw), or blame him or attributes imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgment regarding such a person is the same the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we will make clear. This judgment extends to anything which amounts to a curse or a disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion. The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the u’lamaa and the Imaams of fatwa from the time of the sahabah until today.” (Qadi Iyad ‘ash Shifa bi Ta’rif Huqooq Mustafaa’ 373) Sidi Khaleel said concerning issues which break the contract of protection for the dhimmi [the non-Muslim living in Dar al Islam] “Insults a prophet with slander over and above what constitutes his disbelief…he should be put to death unless he embraces Islam.” (Khaleel ‘al Mukhtasar’) Imam Ibn Naqeeb al Misri said “When a person who has reached puberty and is sane, voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed….(and he included the following as apostacy:-) …to revile Allah or His Messenger…” (Ibn Naqeeb al Misri ‘U’mdat as Saalik wa U’ddat an-Naasik’ Kitaab al Jinayaat [p.596-597])

This is the hukm for the one who curses Allah, His ayah and His Envoy. We take refuge in Allah from this. Before going on to another issue in order to prevent doubts it would be beneficial to touch upon the following:  

Surely stating the words of kufr (alfadl kufr) is kufr in both dhahir and batin even if its owner did not intend kufr. However if the individual does not know the meaning of the word and utters it because this individuals intention was not that which necessitates kufr he will not be made takfir of. The reason is because this individual with his word which is under consideration did not intend the kufr meaning of his word. It is like the following example: If an individual says raina to the Nabi (saw) meaning listen to us, this individual will not be made takfir of. However if he says raina to criticize, to condemn (wal a'udhu billah) even if this individual does not know this is kufr and did not intend (kufr) in dhahir and batin he will be made takfir of.    

This is why we can come across words from the ulama similar the following: Whoever speaks kufr or performs kufr he will be made takfir of even if he does not intend this. For this reason the slave of Allah should not utter a word without knowing its meaning or interpretation that may take him to the pleasure or displeasure of Allah.

Abu Hurayrah heard RasulAllah say: “A slave of Allah may utter a word without thinking whetherit is right or wrong. He may slip down in the fire as far away a distance equal to that between the east and west.” (Bukhari) Abu Hurayrah narrated RasulAllah said: “A slave (of Allah) may utter a word which pleases Allah without giving it much importance and because of that Allah will raise him to degrees (of reward); a slave (of Allah) may utter a word (carelessly) which displeases Allah without thinking of its gravity and because of that he will be thrown to the hell fire.” (Bukhari & Muslim)

Ibn Taymiyyah states: “Hafidh states: ‘An individual who hears something which can not be understood, in other words, the meaning for him is not cared for, and is not requested. The meaning is not set in his mind or is not even thought to be set, however it will be used when he sees the need to.’ Shayh Izzeddeen b. Abdussalam states: ‘This is something the one stated can not differentiate the good or bad of it. For this reason it is haraam for a human to speak of that which he can not distinguish the beautiful from the ugly.’ Nawawi states ‘In this hadith there is encouragement to protect the tongue. According to this the one who wishes to speak must think of what he is going to say before speaking. If he sees benefit in himself he will speak or else he’ll keep quite.” It is understood in these statements that before making a statement the individual must examine the meaning and concept as he must stay away from that which he cannot distinguish beautiful from ugly. And this is a must.” (As Sarim’ul Maslul, 154)

Ibn Taymiyyah states: “In summary, whoever states anything that is kufr or performs the action without the intention of becoming a kafir, for this reason he will become kafir. Because no one can intend kufr other than those Allah wished.” (as Sarim’ul Maslul)

Sometimes they say: as long as the individual does not intend kufr he will not be made takfir of. Their intention with this is the meaning which the kufr is incumbent (tarattub) upon; it is not kufr per se. It is because as Shaykh (ra) stated ‘no one can intend kufr other than those Allah wished.’    

To illustrate this point, a person may prostrate to an idol and this act in and of itself is kufr that expels from the religion. However, it is not a condition that a person “intended to perform kufr” by this act, before he is judged a disbeliever, since the mushriks who worship the dead and make supplication to them, believing that the dead provide for them and protect them, they never “intend to perform kufr” by these acts, rather they consider them to be worship and nearness to Allah, yet they are the greatest of acts of shirk and apostasy.

To illustrate with another example, a person who mocks and reviles Allah (awj) or RasulAllah (saw), it is not required that the person “desired kufr” by his words of mockery or revilement, and neither is it a condition that he “believed (i'tiqaad) in what he said” before takfir is made of him. Rather, if he said these words deliberately, intending to say these words, desiring to say these words, then that in and of itself is the kufr that expels from the religion. However, there is a difference between “desiring the act” and “desiring kufr”. The latter, “desiring kufr” is of no significance and its presence or absence has no bearing on the ruling of takfir (in those cases where the action is major kufr that expels from the religion -If a person desired kufr in his heart, then he would become a disbeliever through that, regardless of whether he performed an act of kufr or not.-) However, the former, “having desired the act”, meaning that a person wilfully did the act, then this does have a bearing on the ruling of takfir, for this is related to the preventative barriers and required conditions for the performance of takfir, in the sense that it must be verified that this act did not occur out of compulsion, or error and the likes.

Ibn Qayyim said, “It has preceded that the one who uttered, when he found his lost camel, “O Allah, you are my servant and I am your Lord” erred due to extreme joy and he did not disbelieve by these words, even though he uttered pure and clear kufr. This is because he did not intend to say it. And the one who is compelled to utter kufr, has indeed spoken with a word of kufr, but he does not become a disbeliever since he did not desire to utter this word, as opposed to the one who mocks or jests (about Allah, the Messenger, or the religion). In this case, such an utterance would necessitate disbelief and divorce, even if he was only joking and fooling around, since he desired to utter these words (qasidun littakallum bil-lafdh). And even if he was just joking, then this would be no excuse for him, as opposed to the case of the one who is compelled, or who erred, or who was forgetful. Such a one is excused..." (I'laam ul-Muwaqqi'een 3/63)

Regarding the matter of ignorance not being an excuse Muhammad b. Abdul Wahhab had been asked a few questions… His answer to the question ‘takfir will not be made on him if he speaks of a kufr speech which he has no knowledge of’ does this mean if he has no knowledge of its meaning or that he will not be a kafir?’ is as follows:

“If an individual speaks of the kufr which he does not know this clearly means he has spoken what he has no knowledge of. When it comes to the fact if it will make him a kafir this ayah will be sufficient for him to understand: ‘Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it...’ (At-Tawbah 9/66) With the belief they had not become kafir they had presented an excuse to the prophet. It is amazing how individuals give this ayah the second meaning. Whereas they hear these words of Allah: ‘Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?’ (Al-Kahf 18/104) ‘Some He hath guided: Others have (by their choice) deserved the loss of their way; in that they took the evil ones, in preference to Allah, for their friends and protectors, and think that they receive guidance.’ (Al-Araf 7/30) ‘Such (evil ones) really hinder them from the Path, but they think that they are being guided aright!’ (Az-Zukhruh 43/37) Now do these people think those referred to in the ayah have not become kafir? But only the individual who is in open ignorance will not question and learn these matters!” (Tarih'u Najd al-Mas'ala 16, 447)

Shaykh ul-Islam Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab also stated: “And it is also said that whose about whom Allah said, ‘They swear by Allah that they said nothing (bad), but really they said the word of disbelief, and they disbelieved after accepting Islam’ (at-Tawbah 9/74), have you not heard (for yourself) that Allah declared them kuffar by a mere word they uttered, alongside their being from the time of RasulAllah (saw), and their having fought alongside him (in Jihaad), prayed with him, given zakah, made hajj and singled out Allah in Tawhid? And likewise those about whom Allah said, ‘Say: ‘Was it at Allah, and His Ayat and His Messenger that you were mocking?’ Make no excuse; you have disbelieved after you had believed.’ (At-Tawbah 9:65-66). So those who were with RasulAllah (saw) in the expedition of Tabuk, and about whom Allah made it clear that they disbelieved after having faith, they uttered a word and then they mentioned that they only said it in jest (i.e. mockery). Then it has to be clear that the one who proclaims statements of kufr and acts on them -just because he fears a reduction in his sustain or some harm from people (which does not reach the level of ikrah/coercion)- then this one is worse than the one who did so just jokingly.” (Kashf ush-Shubuhaat)

[Naasirul_Haqq]

Long-term Jail