Islamic Perspectives on Allies and Enemies

Allah does not forbid you from those who do not

fight you because of religion and do not

drive you from your homes from

being kind and just to them.

Allah loves those who are just.

Allah only forbids you from

those who fight you because of religion

and drive you from your homes

and aid in driving you out from

taking them as allies. Whoever

takes them as allies, they are

the wrongdoers.

It is clear that those who wage war on us or fight us

because of religion or aid those

who fight us because of religion or

support them attack our religion.

These are the combatants whom it is not

permissible to take as allies.

They are at war with us, like

those who attack our religion

and attack our Sharia and attack

the hijab, or support our enemies,

support the occupiers of our lands, or

invade our lands.

All of these are combatants, classified as combatants

even if no dhimma status exists.

An Islamic state exists that

grants dhimma and sets out

these details. These are combatants.

The second category mentioned by God in Surah

Al- Mumtahanah are those who do not

wage war on us or fight us because of

religion, nor aid our enemy

nor attack our religion.

Allah, Glorified and Exalted,

has not forbidden us from treating them

kindly and fairly. Rather, this is

the character of Islam and Muslims,

to treat such people kindly and fairly, and to be gentle

with them and hope

for good from them.

We hope they embrace Islam and

become supporters of

the faith in the future.

Even if they do not, we are commanded

to treat them fairly because

they do not oppose our religion.

If a Muslim fails to distinguish between the

two groups and kills

them all, he will say,

“This Muslim is a fool who cannot

distinguish friend from foe,

who cannot distinguish

between someone he should avoid or treat

kindly and someone who

opposes and fights him.”

And this is not reasonable.

Now, these terms, the term “ahl al- dhimma”

and the term “musta'man,”

and similar terms, people of this world do not

like them and are repulsed by them because

civil states, as they call them, and man-made constitutions

have made all people equal in citizenship,

that they are equal and do not

distinguish between them based on religion.

So if you come and say this

Christian is a musta'man, it is not

permissible to target him,

let alone say he is a dhimmi.

A dhimmi is one who pays

In an Islamic state,

the ruler takes jizya from

him to protect him, and he

respects Islam, its rites, and its laws.

This is the dhimmi.

Therefore, there are no dhimmis now,

meaning people under safe- conduct.

States do not call them that or accept it,

nor do their constitutions contain

such terms and designations.

Rather, they recoil from

them and consider them

demeaning to Christians. That is, they see this as

a demotion and a lowering of their status,

as though they were second- class

citizens and so on. So they do not accept it at all.

You come borrowing from people,

borrowing from governments, borrowing from

Christians, then say that Christians

are dhimmis or under safe- conduct.

First of all, you have applied

the term in the wrong place,

because the dhimmi

is the one who pays jizya,

and these Christians do

not pay jizya. The dhimmi

is the one who enters under the

protection of the Islamic state,

which accepts him as a dhimmi

and as a citizen, protects and guards him,

and preserves his property, life,

and honor. There is no Islamic

state today that does this.

As we said, secular constitutions

and man- made laws stipulate

that people are equal before the law,

with no distinction between them

based on religion. This is how

their laws are written,

so they fundamentally do not accept this term.

When you deny it by saying there is no dhimma,

that does not mean

targeting every Christian, as we explained,

nor does it mean that you endorse

targeting every Christian.

No, but the reality is that they do not accept

this term. Just as they suspended Sharia,

they suspended this term and suspended Sharia

in its entirety. Among the

Islamic laws they suspended

were the terms of dhimma

And the like. There are people granted

safe conduct, meaning when you

bring in

a worker, for example,

to work in your factory,

who is a Christian from any country in

the world, and he comes and respects your

religion and respects your rituals and does not

insult your religion and works for you at the factory,

this man is under your guarantee, under

your protection. He must be kept safe,

and no one may target him,

because your pledge is the pledge of a

Muslim. The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said,

“The least among them may grant protection on behalf of them all.”

Likewise, if there are organizations,

associations, or companies

You bring in some Christians, for example, to work

for a company somewhere or host

them for a specific purpose.

If these bodies, associations, or groups are Muslim,

their safe conduct should be upheld.

Do not tell me that all

Christians in Muslim countries

Since there is no protected

status and no Islam,

are they targets?

No, all this must

be taken into account. The first

distinction we drew between the two groups

and between the two categories is

what applies to this reality after the

term Ahl al- Dhimma disappeared from

Constitutions and

laws should distinguish

the hostile combatant

against God's religion,

who aids our enemy and those who occupy our land

and attacks our Sharia and Muslim

women's hijab and other matters.

It should distinguish

this belligerent as an enemy combatant,

even if he does not fight

with a weapon, merely

waging war through speech and attacking Islamic

rituals classifies him as a belligerent.

Shaykh al- Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says

that combat through speech is sometimes

more damaging than combat with a weapon,

because it involves

incitement and attacks

Under Sharia, it involves harming the Prophet,

peace be upon him, and is sometimes

the best kind of warfare.

Anyone who wages war against Muslims'

religion is classified as a hostile combatant.

We are not talking about him.

But one who does not wage war

against Muslims' religion,

respects Muslims, and does not impugn

their religion,

whether the term “dhimmi”

exists or does not exist,

whether the term “dhimmi” has become obsolete,

or these constitutions have rendered

it obsolete or abolished it, we

are commanded to grant security to one who

does not wage war against the religion of

Muslims, but respects

the religion of Muslims.

Indeed, one who respects the religion of

Muslims in the absence of an Islamic

state and without the

authority of a state

The one whom Muslims fear is more

entitled to protection than the one who

pays the jizya in an Islamic state.

Why? The one who pays the jizya in the

Islamic state

is safe among us, and he respects

Muslims' religion and religious rites.

He fears the state's

authority and power, so he

pays the jizya and becomes a citizen.

The Muslim state protects him

because he respects its religious rites,

pays the jizya, and acknowledges

the principle of dhimma

thus entering into its protection.

He may pay the jizya out of fear

of the Muslim state's authority and a desire for its protection

and security. Of course,

this requires him to respect the Muslims' religion,

even if he

insults Islamic rites,

opposes any of its rites, or

allies with, supports, and aids its enemies against it, then

his covenant is breached.

As Shaykh al- Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says, a dhimmi's

security is breached by insulting the

Muslims' religion or insulting the Prophet

or the like, just as a Muslim's

faith is invalidated by the same

if he insults the Muslims'

religion or harms the Prophet,

peace and blessings be upon him.

As for one who does not do this,

does not harm Muslims,

and does not insult their religion,

in the absence of a Muslim state,

he is more deserving of security than that person.

That is, that person respected the Muslims' religion

out of fear of the Muslim

state's authority and fear

of the Muslim state's swords.

But this person, in the

absence of the Islamic

state, respects Islam and Muslims and

even supports their causes and works in

relief efforts for their

oppressed people and the like. This

type is more deserving of

security than that type who pays

He pays the jizya directly while humbled,

and this respects the religion

of Muslims, though he is not humbled.

Civil laws protect him, and he respects the religion

of Muslims, though he can

insult Islam and Muslims,

and laws protect him.

Civil laws and the laws of his country protect him,

yet he respects Islam and Muslims.

He works to provide them relief and

does not insult their religion,

nor support their enemies. So it is

stupidity, foolishness, and a violation of God's religion

and of the minds of sensible people

to target someone like this.