The question of boycotts involves four key aspects:
Legitimacy: A boycott is a legitimate and Shariah-compliant method of expressing discontent, especially when one is unable to proactively influence a situation. Massive corporations and the plutocracies that support them are formidable opponents that most people cannot directly impact. In such cases, refraining from engaging with them is an act of faithful disobedience, symbolizing one’s rejection of the evil these entities perpetuate. The Prophet ﷺ said, “Share your meal only with the pious and intelligent,” which, by inversion, implies: do not engage with the sinful or ignorant.
Scholars have long warned against becoming too close to evil rulers, coining the phrase, “Avoid the doors of the unjust sultan.” Thus, boycotts are not only permissible in Islam but are also a form of combating evil through action, in accordance with one’s ability. The Prophet ﷺ said, “What I have commanded, observe it to the best of your ability.”
Strategy: It is essential that the targets of a boycott be informed by the people and groups most directly impacted by the injustice. As our brothers and sisters at BDS have stated, “Not all boycotts fall under our strategic goals.” Therefore, avoid being swayed by online rumors, memes, or unreliable sources. Instead, follow the guidance of respected groups and organizations that understand the strategic objectives of the boycott, its goals, and its requirements.
Ability: In some situations, a complete boycott may result in hardship for you or your family. It is important to ensure that everyone is on board with the decision. Allah says, “Consult with them,” and when deciding to stop breastfeeding, He advises, “Both consult with one another.” Therefore, you may need to tailor your participation in the boycott in a way that allows you to grow into both the moment and the movement. Ensure that your actions are informed, mutual, and strategic. As Al-Mutanabbi wisely noted, “There is no example of bravery like the bravery of the wise.”
Respecting Other Efforts: Avoid dismissing those who may be showing solidarity with the oppressed or standing against evil in different ways. Allah says, “Whoever does an atom’s weight of good will see it.”
“Sheikh Abu Abdullah Sidi Muhammad bin Marzooq was asked about a fatwa issued by a man who had taken up teaching. The fatwa stated that it is obligatory for every man who has a wife to question her about her beliefs, and if he finds her holding beliefs that are impossible for Allah—such as attributing a corporal direction to Him—then he must separate from her because she is considered a polytheist. The question posed was: “O my master, is this obligatory, and is the ruling as he has stated, or not? And what is the ruling regarding someone who is ignorant and holds no other belief but the testimony of faith: La ilaha illallah, Muhammad Rasulullah, as you know is the case with most people? Please clarify this matter for us, and may you be rewarded and thanked. Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.”
He replied: ‘This is one of the calamities, for if this door is opened for the common folk, the entire system will be disrupted. Do not stir up theological issues among the common people, and let the testimony of faith suffice, as Imam Abu Hamid (Al-Ghazali) said, and this is supported by authentic hadiths. If it were obligatory to ask women about this after marriage, it would also be obligatory to do so before marriage. One would not proceed with marrying a woman who bears witness that La ilaha illallah, Muhammad Rasulullah without first testing her beliefs, because, according to their principles, if something that annuls the contract occurs afterward, it would prevent the contract in the first place. Yes, if it becomes evident that some wives hold incorrect beliefs without such being asked of them, it should be examined according to the appropriate ruling, because this matter is very common and difficult to regulate.
Allah is the one who grants success by His grace. And He, exalted is He, knows best.’
This was written by Muhammad bin Ahmad bin Muhammad bin Marzooq. May Allah forgive him and show him mercy through His kindness. Peace be upon you, and the mercy and blessings of Allah.
Question Two
Sidi Abdullah al-Abdusi was asked about a man who married a woman and found corruption in her beliefs:
Is it obligatory for him to separate from her or not?
He responded: Corruption in belief falls into three categories: that which is unanimously considered disbelief, that which makes the one holding it sinful but not a disbeliever, and that which is disputed as to whether it constitutes disbelief or not. As for that which is unanimously considered disbelief, the ruling regarding those who hold such beliefs is the same as for Zoroastrians—it is not permissible to marry her from the outset. If someone marries her without knowing this and then finds out, it becomes obligatory for him to separate from her. The separation in this case is a dissolution ( فسخ ) without the need for a divorce. This can be established either by clear evidence that she held such beliefs at the time of the marriage contract, or by her own admission, confirmed by her husband. However, if her husband does not believe her, her statement is not accepted, as she might be seeking separation by making such a claim. Nevertheless, it is recommended that he separates from her out of piety, scrupulousness, and caution in avoiding doubts, for sin troubles the heart, even if the people give you fatwas to the contrary.
As for that which is not considered disbelief by consensus, it is not obligatory for him to separate from her. Instead, he must guide her and teach her what will rectify her beliefs, unless there is someone else, such as a mahram or another individual, who can take care of that. As for what is disputed regarding whether it constitutes disbelief, this depends on the couple. If both agree on the opinion that it is not disbelief, they may remain married. However, if they take the opinion that it is disbelief, separation becomes obligatory. Likewise, if the husband alone follows the opinion that it is disbelief, separation becomes obligatory, as the dissolution of the marriage is in his hands. If the husband adopts the opinion that it is not disbelief, and the wife adopts the opinion that it is, the judge will resolve the dispute between them. If the judge rules that it is disbelief, separation becomes obligatory. If the judge rules that it is not, he will compel the wife to remain with him, and his ruling resolves the dispute. This is a summary of what this student asked me, written in my own handwriting. A full explanation of the evidences and arguments, and what constitutes disbelief and what does not, would require the writing of two answers. However, it is sufficient for the seeker, when faced with such an issue, to ask about it. And with Allah, the Most High, lies success.
He was also asked: Is it obligatory for a man to test his wife regarding her beliefs or not?
He replied: We say that Muslim women are assumed to be upon the apparent soundness of their Islam and their beliefs, and their inner secrets are left to Allah the Most High. However, if it becomes strongly apparent to him that there is corruption in her beliefs, he should investigate the matter with her. He is obligated to teach her what she is ignorant of regarding this. Some of the respected jurists used to instruct the witnesses to the marriage contract to test the woman’s beliefs before concluding the marriage, due to the widespread corruption in their beliefs. They would act upon this, and by this method, Allah guided many women to sound beliefs. I will, God willing, compile a concise book on the beliefs that the common people must hold, using simple language and rational and transmitted evidences that are comprehensible to their minds. And with Allah the Most High lies success.
Written by Abdullah al-Abdusi, may Allah’s grace and bounty be upon him.
Ahmad ibn Yahya al-Wansharisi. Al-Mi‘yar al-Mu‘rib wal-Jami‘ al-Mughrib ‘an Fatawa Ahl Ifriqiyyah wal-Maghrib, editedq by Muhammad ‘Uthman, vol. 1, 602-603. Lebanon: Dar Al-Kotob Al-Ilmiyah, 2012.
I am a Muslim woman who strives to follow the commands of Allah in every aspect of my life, including my relationships with others. I work as a principal at an all-girls’ high school, where I interact with both male and female teachers. We exchange courtesies on various occasions, such as congratulating someone on a wedding, a new child, or a promotion. However, one issue that has raised concern for us is the question of visiting sick male colleagues. There are instances when a male colleague may fall ill or undergo surgery and be admitted to the hospital. Is it permissible for me and my fellow female teachers to visit our male colleague, considering the right of collegiality, or is this a matter that pertains only to men?
A similar question arises regarding male colleagues visiting a female colleague who becomes ill or is involved in an accident. Both men and women are exposed to such situations.
We request clarification on this matter in light of the established texts, which serve as the binding and infallible reference for all Muslims.
Answer:
All praise is due to Allah, and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah, his family, his companions, and all those who follow his guidance.
Among the noble etiquettes that Islam has prescribed and that the noble Messenger ﷺ encouraged is the practice of visiting the sick. The Prophet ﷺ regarded it as one of the rights a Muslim has over another Muslim.
The Prophet ﷺ said, “The rights of a Muslim over another Muslim are six.” It was asked, “What are they, O Messenger of Allah?” He replied, “When you meet him, greet him with peace; when he invites you, accept the invitation; when he seeks your advice, give him sincere advice; when he sneezes and praises Allah, respond with a prayer for mercy upon him; when he falls ill, visit him; and when he dies, follow his funeral” (Narrated by Muslim).
Additionally, the Prophet ﷺ said, “Free the captives, respond to the invitation, feed the hungry, and visit the sick” (Narrated by Al-Bukhari).
He also said, “Visit the sick and follow the funeral processions; for they remind you of the Hereafter” (Narrated by Ibn Majah).
Furthermore, the Prophet ﷺ said, “Whoever visits a sick person, a caller from the heavens announces: ‘You have done well, and your path is blessed, and you have secured a place in Paradise’” (Narrated by At-Tirmidhi).
When a Muslim visits his fellow Muslim, he remains in the “Khurfah” of Paradise until he returns. It was asked, “O Messenger of Allah, what is the ‘Khurfah’ of Paradise?” He replied, “Its fruit,” meaning what is plucked and gathered from its trees.
Allah, exalted is He, will say on the Day of Judgment, “O son of Adam, I was ill, and you did not visit Me.” The person will say, “O Lord, how can I visit You when You are the Lord of the worlds?” Allah will reply, “Did you not know that My servant so-and-so was ill, and you did not visit him? Did you not know that if you had visited him, you would have found Me with him?”
One cannot find a more eloquent or profound portrayal of the virtue of visiting the sick and its reward from Allah than this. Allah, in His Majesty, likens visiting the sick to visiting Him.
All of these hadiths demonstrate the importance of this Islamic etiquette, which the Prophetic Sunnah, both in word and deed, has emphasized. The Prophet ﷺ even visited a sick Jewish man and invited him to Islam, and the man accepted.
The recommendation of this etiquette—described in some hadiths as a right of a Muslim over another Muslim—becomes even more emphasized when there is a strong bond between the Muslim and the person being visited, such as kinship, marriage, neighborhood, collegiality, or mentorship, which gives some individuals a more significant right than others.
It is also notable that these hadiths use general language that includes both men and women. The hadith, “Visit the sick,” or “Whoever visits a sick person,” or “When he falls ill, visit him,” are not restricted to men alone, without any debate. These general proofs apply to both genders equally.
The general address of these hadiths is sufficient to establish the permissibility of women visiting sick men, as long as the visit is conducted within the established Islamic guidelines and ethical boundaries.
Furthermore, there are specific proofs that demonstrate the permissibility of women visiting sick men. Imam Al-Bukhari mentioned in the chapter on visiting the sick in his Sahih, “The chapter of women visiting sick men.” He narrated that Umm al-Darda’ visited a man from the Ansar who used to frequent the mosque.
It was also narrated by Aisha that when the Messenger of Allah ﷺ arrived in Madinah, Abu Bakr and Bilal became ill. She said, “I entered upon them and asked, ‘O father, how are you feeling?’ and ‘O Bilal, how are you feeling?’”
The phrase “how do you find yourself?” means, “How are you feeling?” which we would express today as, “How is your health?”
Moreover, Umm Mubashir bint Al-Bara’ bin Ma’rur Al-Ansariyyah visited Ka’b bin Malik Al-Ansari when he was nearing death and said, “O Abu Abd al-Rahman, convey my greetings to my son,” referring to Mubashir.
Therefore, there is no objection to a Muslim woman visiting her sick Muslim brother as long as she adheres to the Islamic guidelines and proper etiquette, such as avoiding seclusion, not displaying adornment, avoiding the use of perfume, and not speaking in a soft or alluring tone.
It is preferable, in the case at hand, that the visit to the sick male colleague be conducted in a group. This means that the principal, along with some female teachers, should agree to go together to fulfill the duty of visiting, thus avoiding any suspicion.
There is no reason to hesitate in visiting a sick male colleague, especially when this female colleague or superior interacts with him daily at school without issue. Is it reasonable to interact with colleagues when they are healthy but to refrain when they are ill, despite the fact that the sick are more deserving of compassion and care?
As for a man visiting a sick woman, this is included in the general evidence that encourages visiting the sick.
There are also specific proofs that support the permissibility of men visiting sick women:
Both Al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated from Aisha that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ entered upon Dubaa’ah bint Al-Zubayr and said to her, “Perhaps you intended to perform Hajj?” She replied, “By Allah, I am only feeling ill.” He said to her, “Perform Hajj and set a condition” (i.e., in case her illness prevented her from completing it).
Muslim also narrated from Jabir bin Abdullah that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ visited Umm Al-Sa’ib—or Umm Al-Musayyib—and said to her, “What is wrong with you, Umm Al-Sa’ib, that you are trembling?” She said, “It is the fever, may Allah not bless it!” He replied, “Do not curse the fever, for it removes the sins of the children of Adam as a furnace removes the impurities of iron.”
Abu Dawood narrated from Umm Al-Ala that the Messenger of Allah ﷺ visited her while she was ill and said, “Rejoice, O Umm Al-Ala!”
Al-Nasa’i narrated from Abu Umamah that a woman from the ’Awali area of Madinah became ill. The Prophet ﷺ was exemplary in visiting the sick, and he said, “If she passes away, inform me.”
Al-Bukhari narrated that Ibn Abbas sought permission to visit Aisha during her illness that led to her death, and she granted him permission. He asked, “How are you feeling?” She replied, “I am well if I remain conscious of Allah!” He said, “Then you are well, God willing. You are the wife of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and he married no virgin other than you, and your innocence was revealed from the heavens.”
After these sound and explicit narrations, no Muslim should follow anything other than the guidance of Allah, exalted is He, and the example of His Messenger ﷺ. We should not restrict what Allah has made expansive, nor should we complicate what Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger ﷺ have made easy.
Imam al-Sharani wrote a two volume book detailing Allah’s blessings on him. One he mentioned: His mercy for his detractors when the detractor is tested, is important.
He writes, “Among the blessings that Allah, the Exalted, has bestowed upon me is my mercy for my detractor and my concern for his well-being when he is afflicted by a calamity. This is because I know that his situation cannot be without one of two possibilities:
His enmity towards me is justified, in which case my resentment towards him is foolishness and a flaw in my character.
His enmity is unjustified, in which case he is a weak soul tested in his religion.
Thus, it is incumbent upon me to forgive him, have mercy on him, and pray for him—not to be angry with him and pray against him, further increasing his burden.
I heard my teacher, Ali Al-Khawwas, may Allah have mercy on him, say: “The state of a sincere persom does not reach excellence until all of his actions and moments of stillness are counted among his good deeds, so that nothing is left that diminishes his reward.”
An incident occurred in which Iskandar, the governor of Gharbia, complained to me about a judge. Three days later, that judge died, and, the governor came to me, distressed about the deceased. I asked, “Why are you sad for him, when just yesterday, you were complaining about him?” He responded, “How could I be troubled by him when he has neither control nor influence over the situation?” I was impressed by the strength of his certainty.
It has been narrated from Abu Al-Qasim Al-Junaid, may Allah be pleased with him, that he used to say:
“If someone were to sit to my right, speak to me with the most pleasant words, burn incense of musk and amber before me, and feed me the most delicious foods and drinks, and another were to sit to my left, doing the opposite—burning me with fiery pincers—it would neither increase my regard for the one on my right nor diminish my regard for the one on my left, because I witness both states as being from Allah, the Almighty.”
This station can only be attained by one whose initial perception of everything that happens to him is that it comes from Allah, before witnessing it from the creation. When that realization occurs, he no longer turns towards the creation. Everything that Allah wills to come through them, in terms of harm, is ultimately an action of Allah, not an action of the creation.
Thus, whether a person loves me or hates me, whether willingly or unwillingly, it must happen according to the will of Allah. It is folly for a person to seek love from all of creation, for no one, not even the greatest of the righteous, has been granted that, let alone the common people.
It is also important for you to know, my brother, that no matter how much a person excels in knowledge and righteousness, as in the case of our master Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, he will still have those who love him and those who hate him—whether he likes it or not. It is ignorant for someone to seek that all people love him, for that has never been possible for anyone, not even the greatest of people, let alone those of lesser rank.
There was once a person who hated Imam Ali, may Allah be pleased with him, and would speak ill of him. One day, they were both in a gathering, and the man began praising Imam Ali. When he finished, the Imam said to him: “I am above what is in your heart and below what you say.”
Qasim narrated that when Imam Malik, may Allah be pleased with him, went into hiding during the time of persecution, he inquired: “Do you hear what people are saying about me?” He was told:
“Those who love you only speak well of you, and those who hate you… well, that has always been the case with people; they either love or hate.”
Imam Malik replied: “This is true, but we seek refuge in Allah from a time when all tongues unite in slander.”
Renew Your Thinking: The Efforts of the Mu’tazila in Establishing the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence
If you ask most educated Muslims, let alone their scholars, about the Mu’tazila, they will likely respond in one sentence: “This is a sect we studied as being in opposition to Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah.” In other words, at best, they view them as a deviant sect, according to the moderates. Others would say far harsher things, as the judgment of the Mu’tazila as heretical and unirthodox is overwhelmingly present in classical sources. Their exclusion from Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah is evident and explicit.
I will not delve deeply into the term “Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah” itself, which has been distorted, privatized, and clouded with ambiguity. This term requires rigorous academic research and historical and social studies to uncover the reality behind its appropriation by different sects throughout history and even today. The fact remains that most of the theological works, both old and recent, when speaking in the name of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah about other sects, speak in a domineering, condescending manner, making you feel as if they are talking about entirely different religions, not simply sects that strove, sometimes succeeded, and sometimes erred. However, these sects never declared themselves outside the fold of Islam, nor did they reject the Shahadah (the testimony of faith). So on what basis, then, is the judgment made that they are not part of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah?
The Mu’tazila, without a doubt, were on the receiving end of much of this judgment, merely because they proposed ideas that differed from the prevailing thought in an environment where rejection awaited anyone who dared think even slightly differently.
In a discussion with one of my students about the Mu’tazila, he said, “They are not part of Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah, but they are not disbelievers.” I asked him, “Then who are they?” He responded, “I’m not sure.”
This suggests that the stance of suspending judgment is still alive, and in itself, there is nothing wrong with this approach, especially when it comes from a place of caution in situations where the evidence is equally compelling on both sides in legal or interpretative debates. Some may criticize it as a passive stance, but in theological matters, this approach is terrifying, as it is one of the foundational principles of extremist groups that lead to takfir (excommunication).
Here, I am not discussing the virtues of the Mu’tazila, who played an active intellectual role in defending Islam against its detractors from other religions during certain historical periods. Nor am I focusing on their mistakes, like the well-known ordeal of the creation of the Qur’an and its resulting trials and tribulations.
What truly surprises me is how the Mu’tazila can be dismissed as a misguided sect, yet all scholars of Islamic jurisprudence agree that the science of Usul al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) was finalized in four key books: Al-Mustasfa by Al-Ghazali, Al-Burhan by Imam Al-Haramayn Al-Juwayni, Al-Umad by Qadi Abd al-Jabbar, and Al-Mu’tamad by Abu al-Husayn al-Basri. The last two authors were Mu’tazili. I repeat: Mu’tazili!
I was particularly pleased to find that Imam Al-Zarkashi, the renowned scholar of Usul al-Fiqh and author of Al-Bahr al-Muhit, stated that with Qadi Abd al-Jabbar’s composition of Al-Mu’tamad, the science of Usul al-Fiqh reached the sciences’ pinnacle and flourished. This is true fairness!
And let no one say, “You are speaking about a long-dead sect!” I would respond: The Mu’tazila are not a dead sect like many others; rather, a large group among us still adopts their ideas, though under different names, such as modernism.
The purpose of this article is neither to glorify the Mu’tazila nor to defame them. Instead, it is to address a deep-seated issue within us: the tendency to bury the legacy of an entire sect and approach it with condescension and exclusion simply because it holds ideas or several concepts that do not sit well with us.
This is compounded by the rush to expel them from the fold of Islam, as if takfir (excommunication) and tabdi’ (declaring someone an innovator) have become ends in themselves.
If we reflect for a moment, we will find that this exclusionary language has become exceedingly loud today, with much noise and clamor, and it spares almost no one who speaks on religious matters in our current reality.
But what is the solution? The solution lies in “A Creed Without Sects”! This is the title of a book by two great thinkers: Dr. Mustafa Al-Shuk’a (may Allah have mercy on him) and our teacher Dr. Muhammad Al-Jalind (may Allah preserve him).
Their thoughts align entirely with those of Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra in his book Islamic Creed as Presented in the Qur’an, although the previous two works are far more in-depth. I believe that Shaykh Abu Zahra targeted the general masses of Muslims with his work, which is uncharacteristic of his usual writings, making it simple yet comprehensive in its field.
I am also struck by the words of the scholar Shaykh Ibn Bayyah (may Allah preserve him) in a discussion with Shaykh Ibn Baz. In just one sentence, he summarized the idea of “A Creed Without Sects,” saying: “Anyone who refers to the Sunnah is among Ahl al-Sunnah, even if they differ with us in interpretation or reasoning or application, and we guide them back to the straight path.”
Shaykh Mahmoud Al-Gharab (may Allah be pleased with him) shared a story from a time when he was with Shaykh Ismail Sadiq Al-Adawi (may Allah have mercy on him) at Al-Azhar University. During the gathering, Shaykh Ismail suddenly seemed alarmed, his face turned pale, and he asked the group: “What do you think Mary (peace be upon her) meant when she said, ‘Oh, I wish I had died before this and been forgotten completely!’”
No one responded, so Shaykh Ismail went on to explain: “Most scholars have suggested that she said this out of fear that people would accuse her of wrongdoing since she had a child without being married. But this interpretation misses the mark. Some have even argued that her words support the idea of wishing for death during tough times, but that’s not correct either. The Qur’an itself provides reasons why these interpretations don’t hold up:
• Mary was someone of deep faith and devotion, focused on God rather than on what people might say about her.
• She had already been told by angels that she would have this child, so it wasn’t a shock to her.
• She knew that the baby she was carrying was a prophet.
So, it wouldn’t make sense for her to wish for death when she was carrying a messenger of God, because if she died, so would he, along with the message he was meant to deliver.
A better understanding of her words, ‘Oh, I wish I had died before this and been forgotten completely,’ is that during childbirth, she realized what her son’s future would hold. She saw that some people would misunderstand and end up worshipping him instead of God. Out of her deep commitment to preserving the belief in God’s oneness, she expressed that wish.”
With the Names of Allah: the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful
Question: It often happens, especially in some Arab and Islamic countries, that members of the army and state security forces fire upon peaceful demonstrators, resulting in the death or injury of some of them. Some claim this is justified under the pretext of following orders, obeying those in authority, and maintaining public order and security.
My question: Is this permissible according to Islamic law? Does their act of killing or injuring peaceful demonstrators—whether done on their own initiative, in obedience to their superiors, or under the pretext of maintaining security or self-defense—absolve them of civil and criminal responsibility, both in this world and in the Hereafter?
What is your ruling, may Allah have mercy on you and benefit us through your knowledge?
Answer:
Praise be to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon the trustworthy Messenger of Allah.
Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.
In response to your inquiry, it is clear that any act of aggression involving killing or wounding peaceful demonstrators is strictly prohibited. The preservation of life is one of the essential objectives established by Islamic law, both in its texts and its purposes.
Killing a Believer Intentionally: Allah says: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein; and the wrath and the curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him.” [Qur’an 4:93].
The ruling in this verse is attached to the intentionality of the act, which is clear when a peaceful person is killed with a lethal weapon. The demonstrator is peaceful, and the killer uses a weapon with clear intent. Therefore, this warning applies to the perpetrator.
The Duty of Retribution (Qisas): Allah says: “O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution (Qisas) for those murdered.” [Qur’an 2:178].
This is a compulsory duty that must be implemented, as indicated by the word “prescribed” (kutiba), and it applies to all murders, as indicated by the generality of the term. The only exceptions made by Islamic law are cases of accidental killing, where no retribution is applied, and fighting against rebellious groups after reconciliation has failed. Therefore, anyone who intentionally kills a peaceful demonstrator falls under the ruling of this verse, which mandates retribution (Qisas). Those who rely on baseless justifications to invalidate this principle are committing a grave sin in addition to the crime of murder. They are distorting the meanings of the texts and misinterpreting them based on their desires.
The generality of Allah’s statement: “And whoever kills a believer intentionally…” unquestionably includes the killing of peaceful demonstrators. Retribution is mandated by the verse: “Prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered,” and by the verse: “And there is (saving of) life for you in legal retribution, O people of understanding.”
The Prophet (peace be upon him) also said: “Indeed, your blood, your property, and your honor are sacred to one another like the sanctity of this day of yours, in this month of yours, in this land of yours.” The texts on this matter are numerous and definitive.
No text has come to exempt any case of intentional killing or to restrict it except in the case of repelling an aggressor (sā’il) who attacks a person’s life, honor, or property. It is well known that an aggressor is someone who deliberately intends to harm another person’s life, wealth, or honor. This criterion does not apply to demonstrators, their goals, or their demands, whether in countries that legally recognize the right to peaceful protest or those that prohibit it, due to the general sanctity of life and the prohibition against shedding blood.
Demonstrations as Urf Moreover, peaceful demonstration has become a global custom and even a constitutional and legal right. When a ruler assumes power, he does so through a contract that includes certain conditions, among them the rights of the people to express their opinions and engage in peaceful protest. If he attacks demonstrators, he violates the contract and sheds protected lives, committing two crimes: a constitutional breach and a grave crime related to the violation of the sanctity of life, property, and honor.
Obedience to Orders to Kill Demonstrators: It is not permissible for police or soldiers to obey orders to kill or attack demonstrators. This is because obedience to the state is conditional and derivative, while obedience to Allah and His Messenger is the primary and absolute obedience. There is no contradiction between obeying Allah and His Messenger and obeying rulers because the derivative cannot contradict the original. If there is a conflict, obedience to the ruler is void. The obedience to the rulers is invalid when it conflicts with the clear texts of Islamic law. This principle has been firmly established by the scholars. It is universally agreed that “obedience to the leader is only obligatory if he commands in accordance with Islamic law.”
This is supported by many texts, such as the hadith in Sahih Muslim (3/1469) where the Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “A Muslim must listen and obey in what he likes and dislikes unless he is commanded to disobey (Allah). If he is commanded to disobey, then there is no listening or obedience.” Muslim also reports (3/1468) from Umm al-Husayn that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said during his Farewell Pilgrimage: “Even if a mutilated slave is placed in authority over you and he leads you according to the Book of Allah, then listen to him and obey.” The condition for obedience is that the leader must lead according to the Book of Allah, and any command that contradicts the Book of Allah is invalid and carries no obligation of obedience. Thus, the political contract in Islam, as affirmed by all scholars, is based on the principle that “they do not obligate obedience to the leader in everything he commands, but only in what is permissible in Islamic law. They do not allow obedience in disobedience to Allah, even if the leader is just.” Ibn Abd al-Salam also stated that there is no obedience to ignorant rulers unless it is known that their commands are in accordance with Islamic law because their orders and statements are often mixed with truth and falsehood. The hadith states: “People will take ignorant leaders who will issue fatwas without knowledge, thus going astray and leading others astray.” Blind obedience to these ignorant leaders is misguidance. One must ensure that their orders conform to Islamic law; if they do, they are to be obeyed; otherwise, they are not.
No Excuse for Coercion in Killing: Some might argue that a soldier is coerced into killing, but the response is that there is no coercion in killing according to the consensus of the scholars. Even if a soldier is under duress, whether threatened with harm, imprisonment, or dismissal, he is not permitted to kill. This holds even if we assume there is compelling coercion, which is rarely the case. In reality, the most that can happen to a soldier who disobeys orders is dismissal or imprisonment, and this does not amount to coercion that justifies killing.
Ibn al-Arabi said: “There is no difference of opinion among the scholars that if a person is coerced to kill, it is not permissible for him to save himself by killing another. He is required to endure the affliction that has befallen him.” This principle is based on the great Islamic maxim that harm should not be removed by harm.
Whoever kills under coercion is still liable for retribution and has committed a grave sin. Imam al-Shafi’i stated in Al-Umm: “If the person ordered to kill knows that the command is unjust, both he and the leader are liable for retribution, and they are considered as killers together.” Even in cases of coercion, if a soldier kills a demonstrator, Imam Malik ruled that both the coerced and the coercer are liable for retribution. This is also the view of the Hanbali school and was supported by al-Shafi’i with some detail. Abu Hanifa said that the coercer should be executed. If this strictness applies in cases of real coercion, then in other cases, retribution is obligatory without dispute.
In reality, the actions of the police, security forces, and army in suppressing demonstrators do not fall under coercion but are acts of aggression that warrant criminal accountability and retribution. Ignorance is no excuse because the prohibition against shedding protected blood is a fundamental aspect of religion, and no one can claim ignorance of it.
Conclusion: Aggression against demonstrators, whether by killing or wounding them under any pretext, is forbidden by Islamic law and requires compensation according to the general evidence that supports this ruling. There is no text in Islamic law that exempts or permits the killing of demonstrators by orders from security forces. Whoever commits such an act has committed a grave crime, bears the responsibility for a Muslim’s blood, and is liable for retribution.
The Battle of Siffin took place in an area called Siffin, located in the Jazira region between Syria and Iraq. It was fought between the army of the fourth Rightly Guided Caliph, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib, and the army of the Companion and Governor of Syria, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (may Allah be pleased with them both), in the month of Safar in the year 37 AH, approximately a year after the Battle of the Camel. The battle ended with arbitration and a truce between the two sides in Ramadan of the same year (Al-Yaqubi, vol. 2, p. 188; see also Khalifa, p. 191).
Two days after the arbitration document was finalized, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali called his forces to return to Kufa after ordering the burial of the dead and the release of the captives. He returned to Kufa in the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal 37 AH, corresponding to July to August 657 CE.
The primary cause of the battle was that when Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib رضي الله عنه assumed the caliphate, Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan and the people of Syria refused to pledge allegiance to him as the Caliph of the Muslims until the murderers of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, were brought to justice (may Allah be pleased with them all). Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib sent Jarir ibn Abdullah al-Bajali to Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan to invite him to pledge allegiance. When Jarir arrived in Syria, Muawiyah consulted Amr ibn al-As al-Sahmi, who advised him to gather the people of Syria and march towards Iraq to demand retribution for the killers of Uthman ibn Affan (Ibn al-Athir, Al-Kamil fi al-Tarikh, vol. 3, p. 161).
The battle ended between the two sides with the drafting of the arbitration document on Wednesday, the 13th of Safar, 53 AH, corresponding to July 31, 657 CE. The document was written by Abdullah ibn Rafi’, the scribe of Ali (may Allah be pleased with him), and Umair ibn Ubad al-Kinani, the scribe of Muawiyah رضي الله عن. It stipulated that both disputing parties submit their matter to the judgment of the Qur’an. Two days after the document was completed, Amir al-Mu’minin Ali called his forces to return to Kufa after ordering the burial of the dead and the release of the captives. He returned to Kufa in the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal 37 AH, corresponding to July 657 CE.
Amir al-Mu’minin Ali ibn Abi Talib stood over the dead of both his forces and those of Muawiyah and said, “May Allah forgive you, may Allah forgive you,” to both sides (Caliphate of Ali ibn Abi Talib, Abdul Hamid, p. 250). Yazid ibn al-Asam narrated that when the peace was concluded between Ali and Muawiyah, Ali went out and walked among his dead and said, “These are in Paradise,” then he went out to the dead of Muawiyah and said, “These are in Paradise, and the matter will ultimately be between me and Muawiyah.” He used to say about them, “They are believers.” His statement (may Allah be pleased with him) regarding the people of Siffin is nearly identical to his statement regarding the people of the Battle of the Camel (Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, 15/303, with a good chain). (point he is making is that the number of dead were small enough for Sayyidina, Ali رضي الله عنه to observe them, and make dua for them).
Some narrators and writers exaggerated the number of casualties on both sides. While some Muslim writers reported high figures, such as Imam al-Dhahabi in “Tarikh al-Islam,” quoting Imam Ibn Sirin, which requires further historical verification and foundational review, it is noteworthy that some Orientalists and those who sought to distort our history also exaggerated and inflated these figures. Ibn Abi Khaythama reported that the number of casualties in Siffin reached seventy thousand, including twenty-five thousand from Iraq and forty-five thousand from Syria. Similarly, the scholar Ibn al-Qayyim mentioned that the number of casualties in Siffin was seventy thousand or more.
There is no doubt that these numbers are not accurate; rather, they are imaginary figures. The actual fighting and mass confrontation lasted for three days, with pauses in fighting at night, except on Friday evening. The total fighting time was about thirty hours. The scholar Ibn Jarir al-Tabari (4/388) stated, “No matter how intense the fighting was, it could not surpass the severity of the Battle of Qadisiyyah, where the number of martyrs was eight thousand five hundred.” Therefore, it is difficult to rationally accept those narrations that mentioned large numbers (Ali ibn Abi Talib, Ali Muhammad al-Sallabi, p. 529).
The wise Muslim chooses the lesser of two evils and the greater of two goods. In that context, the choice is not about fleeting pleasure, but outcomes in the Hereafter. This was the case with Yusuf, who, when facing two evils, chose the lesser of the two. One brought discomfort in this life, while the other may have brought it in the next. Hence, he chose the former, preferring physical suffering to the displeasure of Allah.
“He said, ‘My Lord, prison is more beloved to me than what they invite me to.’” (Qur’an 12:33)
Abu Hayyan shares an important thought about this, writing:
“And ‘more beloved’ here does not carry its usual meaning of preference because he never loved what they were inviting him to at all. Rather, these were two evils, and he chose the lesser of the two. Even though one involved hardship and the other pleasure, the thought of the pleasure, due to the disobedience to Allah and the bad outcome it would bring, never crossed his mind. Instead, he chose to endure the hardship for the sake of Allah, showing patience in the face of adversity, awaiting relief, and being in constant presence with Allah, praying to Him for deliverance. He then entrusted his protection to Allah and surrendered to Him, as is the habit of the prophets and the righteous.” (Tafsir al-Bahr al-Muhit by Abu Hayyan al-Andalusi)
In these difficult days, be aware: ease and comfort are a mirage promised by silence in the face of thugs in the UK, the genocide in Palestine, and more. If you are a person of knowledge, don’t deceive yourself. In comfort lies the lie of silence, whereas in discomfort rests the truth: Allah’s pleasure.
Ten years ago, during the illegal overthrow of President Morsi, I wrote this:
“When I see scholars praying for oppressors and aiding them against the people, I feel a tremendous sickness and anger. Some of my former teachers have taken positions that are not only cowardly but soil the pure knowledge they claim to uphold. No matter how many ijaazas, your family lineage, your clothes, or mystic claims, if you can’t stand with the masses, if you can’t oppose the killing of civilians and the spreading of oppression, then, by Allah, those things will be a witness against you.”
Anyone who understands the greater evil of this moment cannot allow calculus to bridle their voice and mask their knowledge. Speak! Join Muslims who defend in protest this nation’s honor and know that discomfort is where the truth rests.
