Skip to main content

Refuting the incorrect understanding of Taqiyyah

The following is from the draft translation of the Fiqh masterpiece 'The Islamic Personality, Volume 2' by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.


The Supreme (swt) said:

لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين ومن يفعل ذلك فليس من الله في شيء إلاّ أن تَتّقوا منهم تُقاة ويحذّركم الله نفسه وإلى الله المصير
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers, and whoever does that is not of Allah in anything except if you fear from them something to be feared. And Allah warns you against Himself and to Allah is the return” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:28].

Ya’qub and Sahl recite it as (taqiyyah) which is the recitation of Al-Hasan and Mujahid, while the rest (recite it) as (tuqat). It is said in Al-Qamus Al-Muheet: ‘(At-tawqiyya) is (al-kalau) and protection. I do (taqa) something and I did (taqa) it and do (taqi) it (taqa) and he (taqi) it (tiqa) like (kisa) is I feared it.’ This text in the ayah specifies its subject and this linguistic meaning of the word (taqiyyah) specifies what this word means in this ayah in meaning since no Shari’ah meaning was established for it. So it specifies interpreting it with its linguistic meaning. Upon this basis alone is the ayah understood in its generality and details. As for what came in the ahadith of the circumstances of its revelation, if authenticated, guides to the details of what came in the ayah but would not change its subject neither the meaning of its sentences according to the language and Shar’a. The subject of the ayah is clear in its sentence which is believers befriending the disbelievers i.e. treating them as friends. The text is:

لا يتخذ المؤمنون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين
Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:28].

If the ayah or ahadith came about a specific subject, then it is specific to this subject and does not include anything else. The issue is the issue of believers befriending disbelievers for which came the ayah decisively prohibiting it. Nor is this the only ayah upon this subject; there have come numerous ayahs like the Supreme’s statement:

بشِّر المنافقين بأن لهم عذاباً أليماً. الذين يتخذون الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين
Give tidings to the hypocrites that for them is a painful punishment. Those who take the disbelievers as (awliya) instead of believers” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 4:138-139].

And the Supreme’s statement:

يا أيها الذين آمنوا لا تتخذوا الكافرين أولياء من دون المؤمنين
O you who believe, do not take the disbelievers as (awliya) instead of disbelievers” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 4:144]

And His (swt) statement:

لا تجد قوماً يؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخِر يوادّون من حادّ الله ورسوله
You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Day of Judgement loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 58:22]

And His (swt) statement:

لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصارى أولياء
Do not take the Jews and Christians as (awliya)” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 5:51]

And His statement:

لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء
Do not take my enemy and your enemy as (awliya)” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 60:1]

The subject is the subject of believers befriending disbelievers and the rest of the ayah is detailing the subject. This is because Allah (swt) prohibited the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends, and linked this prohibition with a definite decisiveness that the one who does that and takes the disbelievers as friends then Allah is absolved from him. The he excluded from this decisive prohibition one situation which is the believer fearing harm from the disbeliever, wherein it is allowed for him to befriend the disbelievers to prevent this harm. This is if the Muslim were under the disbelievers’ authority defeated in his affair i.e. the fear of the disbeliever permits his befriending. If the fear disappears then the befriending is forbidden. Accordingly the situation is not displaying befriending and hiding something else, but the issue is excluding the situation of the believer’s fear of the disbeliever when the Muslim is defeated in his affair from the generality of forbidding his befriending him. The meaning of the ayah is the decisive prohibition for the believers from taking the disbelievers as friends for them, and that they seek their assistance and depend upon them, and that they befriend them and there be love between them. So it forbade the believers from befriending disbelievers instead of believers then excluded one situation from this, which is in the situation where there exists fear from them when they are under their authority. Then it is allowed to display love for them and to befriend them to prevent their evil and harm. That is, it is allowed to take them as i.e. friends in the situation where there exists fear from them when they are under their rule. Apart from that, it is absolutely not allowed. This is for the disbelievers only in relation with the believers as the ayah was revealed in the affair of the believers who had relations friendship with the polytheists in Makkah. It prohibited those in Madinah from befriending the polytheists in Makkah and it prohibited all believers but excluded from that the believers who were in Makkah who were defeated in their affair. So it excluded them due to the existence of fear of the harm of the disbelievers near to them. This is the subject of the ayah and this is its meaning, and this is the Shari’ah rule deduced from it which is the forbidding of the believers befriending the disbelievers in all types of befriending, for support, friendship, assistance etc as the word (awliya) came general in the ayah covering all its meanings, and the permission of befriending them in the situation of fearing them i.e. fearing their violence and harm when the disbelievers are victorious over Muslims and the Muslims are defeated in their affair exactly like the situation of the Muslims in Makkah with the polytheists. There does not exist any other meaning in the ayah nor any rule other than this rule deducted from it. As for what some say that “taqiyyah” is that a Muslim displays opposite to what is hidden before any person from whom he fears harm or fears his knowing his reality and what is in his soul whether that person is a disbeliever or believer, this statement is pure error. The ayah does not indicate anything of this since the meaning of: “Except if you fear from them (tuqat)” i.e. except if you fear from them something to be frightened of as the meaning of “atqaytu” something “taqiyyah” is I feared it, and (tuqat) and (taqiyyah) are of one meaning. This is excluded from the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers instead of believers so it is specific to what is excluded of it.
Accordingly displaying affection for the Muslim ruler due to fearing his harm when he is an oppressor, a transgressor, ruling by disbelief is haram. Similarly displaying affection for the Muslim contradicting you in the opinion while hiding hate for him is haram, and to show lack in restriction by Islam or not caring for it in front of the disbeliever or transgressor is not permitted. All of that and what is similar to that is hypocrisy which the Shar’a made haram upon Muslims since the subject of “Except if you fear from them something to fear (tuqat)” is restricted to the reality of Muslims who were in Makkah between polytheists i.e. restricted to the situation of the existence of Muslims under the authority of disbelievers and there is no capability for them to remove their authority i.e. defeated in their affair. Then it is allowed for them to befriend the disbelievers in fear over what is feared from them whether over their lives, wealth, honour or interests. In this situation alone it is allowed to take disbelievers as friends instead of believers. Everything that enters under this situation allows taking disbelievers as friends instead of believers. The issue is clarifying the situation wherein it is allowed for believers to befriend disbelievers which is where Muslims are defeated in their affair before disbelievers like where they are under their authority or rule; it is absolutely nothing else.
Muhammad bin Jareer At-Tabari said in his tafseer: “The view in interpreting His statement: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers’ until His statement ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat).’ Abu Ja’far said: This is a prohibition from Allah (swt) for the believers not to take disbelievers as helpers and supporters and assisters. Accordingly He made (kasr) for “yatakhidhu” (to take) in the position of making the prohibition decisive but He made (kasr) for the “dhal” together with it due to the “sakina” which meets a “sakina”. The meaning of this is "Do no take, O you believers, the disbelievers as assisters and supporters befriending them, instead of Muslims, upon their religion and assist them against Muslims and direct them to their (Muslims’) weaknesses. For whoever does that then he is not from Allah (swt) in anything which means that he has been absolved from Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) is absolved from him by his apostasy from His deen and his entering into kufr ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ (i.e.) except if you are in their authority and fear them for your lives then show friendship by your tongues and hide your enmity from them but do not be partisans for what they are upon of kufr and do not help them against a Muslim by action" just as:
Al-Muthni narrated to me: Abdullah bin Sahr said: Mu’awiyya bin Salih informed me from Ali (ra) from ibn Abbas (ra) that His (swt) statement: “Let not the believers take disbelievers as friends instead of believers” except if the disbelievers become victorious so they shown them kindness but contradict them in their deen and that His (swt) statement: ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ until he said:
 Al-Hasan bin Yahya narrated to me that Abdurraziq informed us that Mu’ammar informed us from His (swt) statement: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends’ that Qatadah said: It is not allowed for a believer to take a disbeliever as a friend in his deen. And His (swt) statement: ‘Except if you fear from them something to be feared’: that there is between you and him kinship so you befriend him for that. Abu Ja’far said: That which was said by Qatadah in his interpretation is for him alone nor is it the direction which the clear apparent meaning of the ayah indicates except if you fear from the disbelievers something to be feared. The stronger of the meanings of these words is except if you fear from them something to be feared. The (taqiyyah) which Allah (swt) mentioned in this ayah is the (taqiyyah) from the disbelievers not others and Qatadah took it to mean except if you fear Allah (swt) because of the kinship between you and them something to be feared so you united its blood-relationship which is not stronger in relation to the meaning of the speech. The interpretation in the Qur’an is upon the stronger apparent (meaning) of the known speech of the Arabs as was used among them” (At-Tabari’s words ends).
And Abu Ali Al-Fadhl bin Al-Hasn At-Tabarsi said in his ‘Majmu Al-Bayan fi tafseer Al-Qur’an’ that the Supreme’s statement: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends instead of believers, and whoever does that is not of Allah in anything except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat). And Allah warns you against Himself and to Allah is the return’ that Yaqub and Sahl recited it as (taqiyyah) which is the recitation of Al-Hasan and Mujahid with the rest as (tuqat)…When the Supreme clarifies that He is the King of the world and Hereafter, and All-Capable (Al-Qadir) to honour and humble, He prohibited believers from befriending those who have no honour nor humiliation from His enemies so that the eagerness becomes for what is with Him and His friends, the believers, not His enemies i.e the disbelievers. So He said: ‘Let not the believers take the disbelievers as friends/supporters (awliya)’ i.e. it does not suit the believers to take disbelievers as friends for themselves, seek assistance from them, seek refuge with them and show love for them like He (swt) said in numerous places of the Qur’an like His (swt) statement:

لا تجد قوماً يؤمنون بالله واليوم الآخر يوادّون من حادّ الله ورسوله
You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger[Translation of the meaning of the Quran 58:22]

And His (swt) statement:

لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصارى أولياء
Do not take the Jews and Christians as friends[Translation of the meaning of the Quran 5:51]

And His (swt) statement:

لا تتخذوا عدوي وعدوكم أولياء
Do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends.’ [Translation of the meaning of the Quran 60:1]

His (swt) statement:

من دون المؤمنين
Instead of believers[Translation of the meaning of the Quran 28:53]

Means that friendship is obliged with believers, and this is a prohibition from befriending disbelievers and assisting them against believers. And it is said (that it is) a prohibition of treating the disbelievers with kindness and friendliness. It is narrated from ibn Abbas: "friends" (awliya) is the plural of "friend (waliyy) who is the one who commands the one pleased with his action with assistance and support, and it occurs in two ways. Firstly, the designated supporter with support and the other who is the supported. So His (swt) statement:

الله ولي الذين آمنوا
Allah is the friend of those who believe’ [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 2:257]

Means their helpers and supporters by His support, and it is said that the believer is the friend of Allah i.e. one assisted by His support. His statement: ‘whoever does that’ means whoever takes disbelievers as friends instead of believers ‘then he is not of Allah in anything’ i.e. he is not from the friends of Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) is absolved of him, and it is said he is not from the friendship (wilayah) of Allah in anything. Then He excluded and said: ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared’ means except that if the disbelievers are victorious and the believers defeated so the believer fears them if he does not show his agreement with them or make good his companionship with them. At that time, it is allowed for him to show his affection for them with his tongue and (فعند ذلك يجوز له إظهار مودّتهم بلسانه ومداراتهم تقية منه ودفعاً عن نفسه من غير أن يعتقد ذلك mudarat) of them as a precaution (taqiyyah) from them and protection for himself without believing that. In this ayah there is an indication that (taqiyyah) is permitted in the deen when there is fear over oneself and our companions say it is permitted in all matter at times of necessity and often it becomes obligatory for the variety of kindness and reconciliation, but it is not permitted from the actions in killing a believer or what is known or he considers most probable that it is spoiling (istifsad) in the deen. Al-Mufid said that it is obligatory at times and becomes fard, and it is permitted at times and becomes recommended. And it is permitted at time without obligation and it becomes at times better than leaving it; and it could at times be better to leave it even though its performer is excused and forgiven over it by leaving the blame over it. Sheikh Abu Ja’far At-Tusi said that the apparent meaning of the narrations indicate that it is obligatory during fear of one’s life, and it has been narrated that a dispensation in allowing speaking clearly the truth thereupon. Al-Hasan narrated

أن مسيلمة الكذاب أخذ رجلينمن أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم فقال لأحدهما: أتشهد بأن محمداً رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أفتشهد إني رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. ثم دعا بالآخر فقال: أتشهد بأن محمداً رسول الله؟ قال: نعم. قال: أفتشهد إني رسول الله؟ فقال: إني أصم. قالها ثلاثاً كل ذلك يجيبه بمثل الأول، فضرب عنقه. فبلغ ذلك رسول الله فقال: أمّا ذلك المقتول فمضى على صدقه ويقينه وأخذ بفضله فهنيئاً له، وأمّا الآخر فقَبِل رخصة الله فلا تبعة عليه
That Musaylimah the liar took two men of the Sahabah of the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said to one of them: Do you bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. He said: Then do you bear witness that I am a Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. Then he called for the other and said: Do you bear witness that Muhammad is a Messenger of Allah? He said: Yes. Then he said: Then do you bear witness that I am a Messenger of Allah? He said: I am deaf (to that). He said it thrice each time answering him like the first so he struck off his neck. This was conveyed to the Messenger of Allah who said: As for the one killed, he executed his truth and conviction, and he took his virtue so may it be good for him. As for the other, he accepted the dispensation of Allah so there is no (tab’a) for him.’

Accordingly (taqiyyah) is a dispensation and speaking clearly the truth is a virtue” (At-Tabarsi’s speech ends).
Accordingly it is shown from the words of the two mufasireen, At-Tabari and At-Tabarsi, who are of two different schools of thought, their agreement upon explaining the meaning of the ayah as it came in that it is a prohibition for believers befriending disbelievers and excluding the situation of believers fearing the harm of the disbelievers from this prohibition. Look at the words of At-Tabari: “except if you fear from them something to be feared (tuqat)’ (i.e.) except if you are in their authority and you fear them over your lives so you show them friendship with your tongues.” And look at the words of At-Tabarisi: “Then He excluded and said: ‘except if you fear from them something to be feared’ and the meaning is except if the disbelievers are victorious and believers defeated so the believer fears them if he does not show his agreement with them and does not make good his friendship with them. At that time it is allowed for him to show his love for them by his tongue and (mudarat) them as a precaution and in protection of his soul.” The two mufasireen agree that the subject is excluding the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and that it is limited to that. Except that At-Tabarisi followed upon that which is outside the subject and made the ayah an evidence that (taqiyyah) is permitted in the deen during for one’s life which is not present in the ayah since its subject is the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers and excluding the situation of fear of the disbelievers when they defeat the Muslims in allowing their friendship in this situation. It is not (taqiyyah) in the deen nor is it specified to fear over life because the exclusion is general “except if you fear from them something to be feared” (i.e.) except if you fear from them what is to be feared from. Az-Zamakhshari said in Al-Kashaf: “Except if you fear from them a matter which requires protection from” so any matter which must be protected from permits befriending it i.e. all that you fear them which is general covering fear over life, wealth, honour and interests. Accordingly making the ayah an evidence for (taqiyyah) in the deen outside the subject, and making it specific in the situation of fear over life is specification without a specifying (evidence). This is besides it being another subject relating to kufr and iman only which is related to another ayah and it is not related to this ayah. As for the statement of At-Tabarisi: “Our companions said (it is) permitted in all matters during necessity” then what he quotes from Al-Mufid of its being obligatory or not obligatory to the last of what he mentioned is abstract speech of any evidence. The ayah does not indicate this in any way even according to At-Tabarisi’s own tafsir, nor did he come with any other evidence neither from the Book or Sunnah or Ijma'a of the Sahabah, hence it is rejected and falls from the rank of consideration. Nor is it said that if befriending disbelievers in the situation of fear of them is allowed then (mudarat) the unjust or transgressor ruler with power is of greater precedent. This is not said because that which is of greater precedent is the sense of the speech and this is not from it nor is ولا يَمُت له بصلة، (yamut) any connection (sillat) with it. It is not of the (qabeel) of the Supreme’s statement:

ومنهم من إن تأمنه بدينار لا يؤدّه إليك
Among them is one whom if you entrust him with a Dinar would not return it to you” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:75]

Nor is it of the (qabeel) of the Supreme’s statement:

ومن أهل الكتاب من إن تأمنه بقنطار يؤدّه إليك
And of the People of the Book is one whom if you entrusted with a qintar will return it to you” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 3:75].

This is because the transgressor is not from the category of the disbeliever or from their class, and because the friendship prohibited in this ayah is befriending instead of the believers. The unjust and transgressor ruler with power is among the believers injustice occurring from him or the transgression covering him does not negate the description of iman from him. Hence this subject does not enter in the research of greater precedent, so accordingly the greater precedent does not come into it such that it is used as a witness.
Moreover the befriending of the unjust and transgressor ruler with power is allowed in the situation of security and the situation of fear equally because he is a believer and befriending believers is definitely allowed because the word “believers” in His statement: “instead of believers” is general covering all believers. There did not come any text prohibiting befriending the unjust or transgressor ruler or befriending transgressors and the wicked (fujjar); rather the texts are specific in prohibiting the befriending of disbelievers. More than that, the obedience to the unjust ruler is obliged in other than sin and jihad is obliged under his banner and it is allowed to pray behind the Imam in prayer if he is a transgressor which are of the greatest indication regarding permitting their friendship. What is prohibited is the pleasure with the injustice of the ruler and the transgression of the transgressor. Accordingly (taqiyyah) is rejected when it is a believer showing opposite to what he hides in front of powerful unjust or transgressor ruler or opponent in the opinion or similar, and doing it is haram as it is hypocrisy and all hypocrisy is forbidden.
Above all that, the accounting of the unjust ruler over his injustice is obligatory and it is not allowed to leave it for fear of the ruler over money or interests or harm, nor is (taqiyyah) allowed therein. Announcing war against him if clear disbelief (kufr bawah) is seen from him after he was ruling by Islam is obligatory and it is haram to refrain from performing it. And commanding the good and forbidding the evil before the ruler or others from the people of transgression or injustice has been obliged by Allah (swt) upon the Muslims. This negates the view of (taqiyyah) and contradicts it completely as He (swt) decisively forbade keeping silent over the unjust ruler and the transgressor, whereas (taqiyyah) obliges silence over that at certain times and makes it recommended at other times and allows it at other times which contradicts the ayah of commanding good and forbidding evil and contradicts the authentic ahadith which came about rejecting upon the leaders and rulers if they are unjust or transgressors and the authentic ahadith which came regarding the obligation of accounting them over their actions an opposes the obligation of exposing the truth without taking into account, for the sake of Allah (swt), the complaint of a plaintiff. Accordingly, with regard to the (taqiyyah) of the unjust and transgressor ruler, or the strong usurper (mutasallit) among the wicked (fujjar) or the one opposing you in the opinion, there came ayat and authenticated ahadith texts contradicting that and encouraging the obligation of acting contrary to that, which emphasizes that it is haram, on top of its being hypocrisy which is not allowed for the Muslims.
There remains the question of the ayah:

إلاّ من أُكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان
Except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 16:106].

Some mufasireen link it with the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” and deduce from it the entering of showing kufr and hiding iman in the category of friendship and making it to enter what they call (taqiyyah), with some deducing from it that friendship is allowed in the situation of fearing for one’s life only but not in other (situations). This is pure error because the ayah: “except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” has a different situation and a different subject as its subject is apostasy from Islam in the situation where there exists fear of definite, confirmed killing not probable and the subject of the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” is prohibiting befriending disbelievers in all its types and excluding the permissibility of this befriending in the situation of there existing what is feared from whether it was fear over life, wealth, interest or any harm. It distinguishes between the two situations and two subjects such that one does not enter into the other nor are they linked with it due to the difference in situation and subject. When the Muslim is under the authority of disbelievers defeated over his matter before them, it is not permitted for him to apostatise from Islam as a show of (mudara) to them; rather it is obligatory upon him to emigrate if he is unable to perform the rules of his deen contrary to befriending them which is allowed. However if the Muslims fear over his life a confirmed death and he is forced upon kufr then it is permitted for him to show kufr and hide iman, and other than that it is not permitted because of the text of the ayah:

من كفر بالله من بعد إيمانه إلاّ من أُكره وقلبه مطمئن بالإيمان
Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his iman except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman.” [Translation of the meaning of the Qur'an 16:106].

So the subject is the subject of kufr after iman i.e. the subject of apostasy from Islam, and the situation is the situation of fearing death. This is what the fuqaha term as الإكراه المُلجِئ (muljiu) which is the only compulsion considered by the Shar’a in all situations in which the rule is lifted from the one compelled. The compulsion which the Shar’a excluded is the (muljiu) compulsion i.e. the situation of fearing definite death. This is strengthened in the ayah that was revealed about Muslims who apostatised fearing death. It was narrated that this ayah was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir. At-Tabari said: “Muhammad bin S’aad related to me and said: My paternal uncle related to me and said: My father related to me from his father from ibn Abbas that His statement: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman’ to the end of the ayah. This was because the polytheists struck Ammar bin Yasir and punished him then left him. So he returned to the Messenger of Allah (saw) and informed him about what he met with from Quraysh and what he said. So Allah (swt) revealed his mention of his excuse: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his iman’ until His statement ‘great punishment.’ Bashr related to us and said: Yazid related to us and said: Saeed related to us from Qatadah: ‘Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his belief except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman’ and said: It was mentioned to us that it was revealed about Ammar bin Yasir whom Banu Al-Mughira captured and covered him in the well of Maymun and said: Disbelieve in Allah, so he followed them in that and his heart was compelled. So Allah (swt) revealed His statement: ‘except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman.’ And At-Tabari said: Ibn Abd al-‘Ala related to us and said: Muhammad bin Thawr related to us from Mu’ammar from Abdulkareem Al-Juzri from Abu Ubayd bin Muhammad bin Ammar bin Yasir who said:

أخذ المشركون عمار بن ياسر فعذبوه حتى باراهم في بعض ما أرادوا، فذكر ذلك إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: كيف تجد قلبك؟ قال: مطمئناً بالإيمان. قال النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم: (فإن عادوا فعُد).
The polytheists took Ammar bin Yasir and punished him until he (bara) them in some of what they wished. He mentioned that to the Prophet (saw) and the Prophet (saw) said: How did you find your heart? He said: Secured upon iman. The Prophet (saw) said: If they repeat, then you repeat.”

These ahadith indicate that the circumstance of revelation of the ayah is the incident of Ammar and its subject is apostasy from Islam. The situation specific to it is the definite fear of killing which alone is sufficient to strengthen that it has no relationship with the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared.” The ayah: “except the one who is compelled and his heart is content upon iman” was revealed in Makkah on the subject of iman, and the ayah: “except if you fear from them something to be feared” is Madinan revealed on the subject of excluding the situation of fearing what is to be feared from the prohibition of believers befriending disbelievers. Accordingly this ayah is not applicable on that subject.
There remains the rule regarding the one threatened with confirmed killing: Is it more virtuous to show kufr and hide iman so as to be safe from death or is it better to persevere upon his iman even if it leads to death? The answer is that persevering to iman even if it leads to death is better because the permissibility of showing kufr is a dispensation and lifts difficulty, and preserving the iman is (‘azeemah) which is the principle therefore it is better. It is narrated

أن مسيلمة أخذ رجلين فقال لأحدهما: ما تقول في محمد؟ قال: رسول الله. قال: فما تقول فيّ؟ قال: أنت أيضاً، فخلاّه. وقال للآخر: ما تقول في محمد؟ قال: رسول الله. قال: فما تقول فيّ؟ قال: أنا أصم، فأعاد عليه ثلاثاً، فأعاد جوابه، فقتله. فبلغ ذلك رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال: أمّا الأول فقد أخذ برخصة الله، وأمّا الثاني فقد صدع بالحق فهنيئاً له
That Musaylimah took two men and said to one of them: What do you say about Muhammad? He said: A Messenger of Allah. He said: Then what do you say of me? You as well. So he left him free. He said to the other: What do you say of Muhammad? He said: A Messenger of Allah. He said: Then what do you say of me? He said: I am dumb. He repeated it thrice and he repeated his answer, so he killed him. That reached the Messenger of Allah (saw) so he said: As for the first, he took the dispensation of Allah. As for the second, he exposed the truth so blessed be he.”

This is explicit in preferring the one who was patient and stuck to iman over the one who took the dispensation of Allah (swt) and showed kufr fearing for his life from a confirmed killing.
This is requiring the one from whom kufr is required. As for the one from whom is sought less than that like leaving the Islamic da’wah or performing a sin or something similar; permissibility is not taken from this ayah. Accordingly it is not said that if Allah permitted the Muslim to show kufr, then what is lesser than kufr is of greater precedent. This is not said because disobedience is not from the species of kufr, so it does not enter the research by greater precedent. Similarly an analogy between kufr and sin is not performed since there does not exist a reason until analogy occurs. However as for the one who fears for his life over confirmed killing and it is sought from him sin or doing less than kufr, it is permitted for him to do so to save his life and there is no sin upon him. This is due to his (saw) statement:

رُفع عن أمّتي الخطأ والنسيان وما استُكرهوا عليه
“Lifted from my Ummah is the mistake, forgetfulness and what is compelled upon it”

I.e. the blame and sin is lifted, and the rule is lifted, which means the permissibility of doing it. However (this is) only in one situation which is the situation of definite, confirmed killing which is what the fuqaha called (muljiu) compulsion which is the only compulsion considered by the Shar’a in all conditions in which there is lifted from the one compelled like divorce, marriage, trade and other actions and contracts. His statement “and what is forced upon it” which is (muljiu) compulsion.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran