Taken From

Ahlu Sunnah Wal

Jamaah.Com

Ruling Relating To
Muslim Rulers & Muslim
Governments Allying
With The Kuffaar

By Abdul Kareem Ibn

Ozzie
In these modern times ignorance regarding the issue of takfir (to
declare a person to be a kaafir (disbeliever)) has become widespread,
due to the takfires (those who make unjustified takfir of individual
Muslim rulers and some other Muslims) the Khawarij of this era.
They made many Muslims assume that they can make takfir of
Muslim rulers and governments due to them allying with the kuffaar
(disbeliever) and assisting the kuffaar against the Muslims.

This assistance which is based on alliance with the kuffaar can take
place in two ways. Either one Muslim state (Muslim ruler and
government) allies with the kuffaar against another Muslim state
(Muslim ruler and government) or secondly a Muslim ruler may ally
with the kuffaar against his own citizen.

Takfires make it seem as if in all circumstance the every individual

Muslim ruler of today is ruled to be kaafir due to his alliance with the
kuffaar against the Muslims.

However this is a lie there are times when this type of alliance could
make the ruler or the government involved fall into complete major
kufr (disbelieve: that makes a Muslim become expelled from Islam),
but there are other situations where allying with the kuffaar would
only make them sinners and other’s where they would not be
regarded as a kaafir or sinner.

The reason for the misunderstanding concerning this issue is the

takfires have failed to distinguish between two very important issues
when it comes to allying with the kuffaar which is tawalle (loyalty) to
the kuffaar and wala (friendship) to the kuffaar.

The shariah definition of tawalle is: Defending the kuffaar, and

assisting them, and helping them with the body, wealth and opinions.
Tawalle is based upon love in the heart of the kuffaar and their deen,
and assisting them to overcome the Muslims, with concealment of
hatred for the Muslims. This is clear kufr which expels from the
Islamic religion because this kufr is kufr of believe.

The shariah definition of muwalaat is: Cooperating and dissimulation

(is a form of deception in which one conceals the truth), flattery
towards the kuffaar for the sake of a worldly objective, without
concealing an intention of kufr in the heart (which is major kufr) and
apostasy from Islam. This is not clear kufr which expels from the
Islamic religion but it is a major sin.

So they have not properly understood the difference between the

Muslim rulers and Muslim governments that allies with the kuffaar
based on tawalle (loyalty) to the kuffaar and Muslim ruler or Muslim
government that allies with the kuffaar based on wala (friendship).
This differentiation is important because tawalle (loyalty) to the
kuffaar takes a ruler or a government into kufr and wala (friendship)
takes them into sin.

Below are few statements from the scholars of Ahlus

Sunnah on tawalle to the kuffaar:

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, there are a number of categories

of assisting the disbelievers against the Muslims (the one in which
there is tawalle is the following): “To help them and assist them (the
kuffaar) against the Muslims (i.e. help them, aid them or give them
victory over the Muslims), while loving what they are upon of
disbelief (kufr) (loving their religion or ideologies), polytheism
(shirk), and misguidance. This category, without doubt is major
disbelief that causes one to exit the religion.” Taken from his
book Duroos fee Shara Nawaaqidh al-Islaam (p.56-159)

Shaykh Jamalu-Deen al-Qaasimee said in his tafsir "The

Muwalaat (meaning tawalle) that is cautioned against (because it is
kufr) occurs with the hatred and enmity of the heart towards the
believers and love of the kuffaar for their kufr"
Shaykh Abdur-Rahman Bin Hasan aali-Shaykh stated “The
Muwalaat that is unrestricted, general (absolute), and this is clear
kufr, and here, with this characteristic, it is actually synonymous
with the meaning of "Tawalle", and based upon this are the
various evidences that have come concerning the severe prohibition
of having muwalaat (loyalty) to the kuffaar carried, and that the one
who turns to them, then he has disbelieved.”

Shaykh Abdul Azeez ar-Rayyis spoke about tawalle to the kufr

and he said, “The principle of a disbelieving allegiance is: loving the
kuffaar due to their religion, or helping them due to their religion or
having pleasure with their religion.” Taken from al-Burhaan al-
Muneer fee Dhad Shubuhaat Ahli’t-Takfeer wa’t-Tafjeer

Imaam Abdur-Rahman Bin Naasir as-S'adi said concerning

tawalle "If it is complete tawalle then this is kufr ((major) disbelief
which expels the person from Islam)…”
Shaykh Salih bin Abd Al Aziz 'Aal Al Shaykh stated “Tawalle: is
an act of disbelief… As for tawalle it is what Allah said, "O you who
believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyah; they are but
Awliyah of each other. And if any amongst you takes them as
Awliyah’, then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those
people who are the oppressors”. The condition of tawalle is helping
the Kaafir against the Muslim at the time of war between the Kaafir
and the Muslim, for the sake of making Kufr (victories) over Islam.

So the base for tawalle is absolute love and alliance with a

kaafir against a Muslim and whosoever loves a kaafir for his
religion, he surely has made tawalle with him, and this is an
act of (major) kufr(disbelief).” Taken from a lecture called Al
Dhawabit Al Shar'iyyah Le Mawoqif Al Muslim Fel Fitan. Held on
Rabee' Al Thani 1411 Hijri.
Shaykh Salih As Suhaimi said in his explanation of the nullifiers
of Islam by Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab: “And the allegiance (to
the kuffaar) that is Haraam comes in two categories (tawalle (loyalty)
to the kuffaar and wala (friendship) to the kuffaar): One type that
takes one out of the fold of Islam (which is tawalle (loyalty) to the
kuffaar) in which the one who does so his Kaafir and has to renew his
Islam, and it is: if he loves the kuffaar with his heart and has
allegiance to them and wishes that they gain victory over
the Muslims, and becomes happy when they defeat the
Muslims then this is Kufr (major disbelief) and there is no
doubt in this, instead verily the likes of this would be categorized as
actions for trying to help the kuffaar to gain victory and helping them
on this and hoping that they are victorious over the Muslims. If this
matter goes to this extent then it is Kufr and apostasy from Islam.”

Based on the understanding of tawalle to the kuffaar this why

Shaykh Abd al-Azeez ibn Baz said in his Fataawa (1/274): “The
scholars of Islam are unanimously agreed that whoever supports the
kaafirs against the Muslims and helps them in any way is a kaafir like
them…”, this statement is not based on wala to the kuffaar as this not
kufr but it is a major sin.

Below are few statements from the scholars of Ahlus

Sunnah on wala (Muwalaat) to the kuffaar:

Shaykh Abdul Azeez ar-Rayyis spoke about Muwalaat to the kufr

and he said, “The principle of a disbelieving allegiance is: loving the
kuffaar due to their deen, or helping them due to their deen or having
pleasure with their deen. So if you find one (a Muslim) aiding
them (the kuffaar) yet without these aspects, (loving their
religion, helping their religion or having pleasure with their
religion), of defending them then it is a worldly assistance
to them which is haraam, yet it is not kufr. Taken from al-
Burhaan al-Muneer fee Dhad Shubuhaat Ahli’t-Takfeer wa’t-Tafjeer
Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, there are a number of categories
of assisting the disbelievers against the Muslims (the one in which
there is Muwalaat is the following): “When one (a Muslim) helps the
disbelievers against the Muslims by his own free will, without being
forced, while he still hates the religion of the disbelievers and is not
pleased with it. Such a person, no doubt, has committed one of
the major sins, and we fear that he may fall into (major)
disbelief. Had he not hated them and their religion we (the
scholars of Ahlus Sunnah) would have ruled upon him with
kufr (disbelief). Thus, he is in great danger.” Taken from his book
Duroos fee Shara Nawaaqidh al-Islaam (p.56-159)

Shaykh Abdur-Rahman Bin Hasan aali-Shaykh stated “The

Muwalaat (meaning Wala) that is specific, is muwalaat to
the kuffaar for a worldly gain, whilst having a sound belief and
without concealing the intention of kufr and apostasy (this is not kufr
but a major sin as the person has a sound belief).”

Shaykh Salih As Suhaimi said in his explanation of the nullifiers

of Islam by Mohammed Ibn Abdul Wahhab: “And the allegiance (to
the kuffaar) that is haraam comes in two categories (tawalle (loyalty)
to the kuffaar and wala (friendship) to the kuffaar): (the second type)
is an allegiance that is haraam (based on wala to the kuffaar or
Muwalaat) but it does not go to the extent of Kufr, like the one who
helps the Kuffaar and adulation of them with hating them in
their hearts, and does acts that is of service for them against
the believers for a worldly benefit or because of desire or an
objective in the worldly life and with this he dislikes them in
their heart and hates them. Is this disbelief of sin? The likes
of this is sin that does not reach the level of Kufr, but there is
no doubt- and Allah's refuge is sought- that is can lead to Kufr at the
end of the day and the matter is dangerous”
Shaykh Salih bin Abd Al Aziz 'Aal Al Shaykh stated “Muwalaat:
is prohibited… As for Muwalaat for the Kuffaar, it's loving
them, and befriending them for the sake of this world,
preferring them and helping them to be on top, and this a
sin and it is not an act of disbelief.

Allah said " O you who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as
friends (or protectors), - offering them (your) love..... “until He says "
And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path "

the scholars have said: Allah called them with the name of believers,
and covered with this label those who loved the Kuffaar, and this is an
evidence that his act is not an act of disbelief, but rather straying from
the right path. This is because he loved them and befriended them for
the sake of this world and not due to his doubt in religion.
This is why the Prophet said for the companion (the companion is
Hatib Ibn Abi Baltaa and is story is very famous) who did that
(muwalaat) "what made you do it?? " and he replied " by Allah I’m
nothing but a believer in Allah and His prophet, I just wanted those
People to protect my money and family..." and the Hadeeth is
mentioned in the two Saheehs.

So from this it's obvious that befriending the disbeliever and loving
him for the sake of this world, is not an act of disbelief if the
fundamental of belief in Islam is present in the person who does the
act of Muwalaat” Taken from a lecture called Al Dhawabit Al
Shar'iyyah Le Mawoqif Al Muslim Fel Fitan. Held on Rabee' Al Thani
1411 Hijri.

Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah spoke about muwalaat (which is

based on Wala to the kuffaar), in regard to the companion Hatib Ibn
Abi Baltaa and his story. He used the story in the same as Shaykh
Salih bin Abd Al Aziz 'Aal Al Shaykh used it above, to prove muwalaat
to the kuffaar for worldly reasons like kinship etc is not kuffaar but
only a major sin. Ibn Taymiyyah said, "Love of them (the
kuffaar) due to kinship or a (worldly) need can influence a
man (to help them like Hatib Ibn Abi Baltaa did) and this
would be a (major) sin which weakens his emaan yet he is
not a disbeliever due to it, just as what happened to Hatib Ibn Abi
Baltaa when he wrote to the mushrikeen informing them of some of
the plans of the prophet, Allah revealed about him, "Oh you who have
believed! Do not take my enemies and your enemies as protecting
friends, showing affection to them…" 60:1" - Majmoo fatawa v7 p 522

The words of Shaykhs on tawalle and wala are supported by even

earlier Imams of the religion, al-Qurtubi in his tafsir (4/57, 18/52)
and also the Imam hafidh Abu bakr Ibnul-Arabi al-Maalikee
in his Ahkaam al-Quraan (4/1770)

From the above it is evident that when a Muslim ruler or Muslim

governments allies with the kuffaar against other Muslims it is not
always major kufr (major disbelief).

If the kuffaar were allied with against the Muslim for one of the
following reason then this allegiance would be counted as making the
Muslim ruler or government in general fall into major kufr that expels
a person from Islam.

1. loving their religion thinking it is equal to or better than Islam,

2. helping them to gain victory over the Muslims due to their
religion or to make their religion become more manifest in the
earth than Islam (i.e. helping them spread their religion)
3. having pleasure with their religion thinking it is a overall good
religion (better than Islam), or thinking some parts are good
(better than Islam) even though they contradict Islamic teaching
or thinking it is not better than Islam but thinking it is still a
good religion (this falls into being pleased with kufr (disbelief)).

These three categories do not just refer to kuffaar religions (i.e.

Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism and Sikhism and all other religions)
but it also refers to their ideologies like democracy and communism
for example or other non-religious beliefs like atheism (do not believe
in god), and agnosticism (believe in one god but reject all faiths
including Islam). Therefore if a Muslim ruler or government fall into
one of the three categories above but not because of the kuffaars
religion but, because of their ideology of democracy or because of
their atheism, then the same ruling would apply to them as would
apply to the one who fall into one of these categories due to the
kuffaars religion.

If a Muslim ruler or Muslim government allies with the kuffaar

against the Muslims but not out of love them for their disbelief,
helping them to gain the upper hand over the Muslims due to their
disbelief or out of pleasure for their disbelief (what ever it is) but does
it for a worldly reason like money or more power and at the same
time hating the disbelievers then the Muslim ruler and the
Muslim government would have fallen into a major sin but not major
kufr.

Now it has become clear that allying with the kuffaar against the
Muslims does not only take one ruling but it has two ruling which are
major kufr and major sin. However the takfires/Khawarij of today
never have distinguished between the two rulings in regards to the
Muslim rulers and governments they only judge them all to be kuffaar
who have fallen into major kuffaar.

Ibn Sahman said about the Khawarij, “And the origin of the
tribulation of the people (the Khawarij) when they embroiled
themselves was ignorance concerning the judgment upon muwalaat
(friendship)...

So they (the Khawarij) did not differentiate between tawalle (loyalty)

and its judgments and between muwalaat, which is in ones action…
And amongst it (tawalle and muwalaat) is that whose doer is a
disbeliever and that which is less than that (disbelief, meaning major
sin)…”

Also it is important to point out another mistake of the

takfires/Khawarij is they never, in any of their statements on this
issue talk about the fact that some of the allegiances with the kuffaar
are halaal.

Shaykh Abdul Azeez ar-Rayyis said “(the) Permissible (allegiance

with the kuffaar) is via having good relations to non-combatants.
From this is Muslim men’s allowance to marry women of the
scripture (Jewish and Christian women) but not the other way round
(i.e. Muslim women marrying men from the People of the Scripture);
eating the food that has been killed by the people of the scripture and
also calling them to Islam and inviting them to leave what they are
upon of abrogated and distorted religion, this is recommended if not
obligatory.” Taken from al-Burhaan al-Muneer fee Dhad Shubuhaat
Ahli’t-Takfeer wa’t-Tafjeer

Side Points: Important Issues Connected To Allegiance

If a Muslim ruler does not help the kuffaar against the Muslims but
he loves the disbelievers this is still haram.

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, “When one loves the disbelievers

even without helping them against the Muslims. Allah has prohibited
this (unless it is natural love such as a Muslim son loving his
non-Muslim parents or a Muslim man who marries a
Christian woman, he has natural love for her). Taken from his
book Duroos fee Shara Nawaaqidh al-Islaam (p.56-159)

Another issue in which there is much confusion in the ummah is

around whether or not a Muslim ruler or Muslim government have
committed kufr, or sin or whether it is permissible for them to ally
with one group of kuffaar against another group of kuffaar who they
have a contract of safety with (from the UN for example). So for
example Morocco (Muslim) helps the UK against Spain for example.

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, “When one helps the

disbelievers against other disbelievers who have a contract of safety
with the Muslims (through the UN for example). This is not
permissible since it causes the contract of the Muslims to be broken.

So it is not permissible for any of the Muslims to fight the disbelievers

who are under such a contract, so as to honour the contract that is
between them and the Muslims. Thus, the one who assists some
disbelievers in fighting against them (the disbelievers who have a
contract of safety with the Muslims) has caused the Muslims contract
to become breached and he has betrayed the honour of the Muslims.”
Taken from his book Duroos fee Shara Nawaaqidh al-Islaam (p.56-
159)

Question: Is it always allowed for one group of Muslims to ally with

another group of Muslims against the kuffaar who there is a contract
of safety with? (Example: USA attack Iraq so in this situation can
Saudi Arabia ally with the Iraq’s against the USA even though Saudi
and the USA have contract of safety with each other).

Answer: Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan said, “…if some Muslims

seek our (other Muslims) assistance against some disbelievers then
we must assist the Muslims against the disbelievers, expect in one
situation, when those disbelievers have a contract of safety with the
Muslims. In this case it is not permissible for us (the Muslims who
were sort for assistance) to assist the Muslims against them, so then
how could we assist the disbelievers against those who have contracts
of safety with the Muslims? This is something that is not
permissible, due to (the obligation of) upholding contracts.
Taken from his book Duroos fee Shara Nawaaqidh al-Islaam (p.56-
159)
Question: Can a Muslim state ally with a kuffaar state and use their
own army and their allies (the kuffaar states) army in a war against
another group of Muslims if they think there is a benenifit for the
Muslims? (Example: Saudi are at war with Iraq and then they ally
with USA (hating their disbelief) so they can use their army because
they think there is a benefit for the ummah in general in using these
kuffaar to help them. So Saudi uses their army plus the US’s army,
against the Iraqi army.)

Answer: Some scholars have allowed the use of kuffaar forces by one
group of Muslims who uses these kuffaar forces in a war with other
Muslims if they think there is a benefit for the Muslims in general. A
few of these scholars are:

• Imam ash-Shafi
• Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal
• Shaykh Abul-Qaasim al-Khirqee
• Shaykh Abul-Hasan as-Sindee
• Shaykh Bin Baz
• Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen

Shaykh as-Sindee stated in his explanation of the hadeeth “I do not

gain assistance from a mushrik”, from the Sunan Ibn Maajah (vol.3,
p.376, under hadeeth no.2832): It shows that gaining assistance
from a mushrik is haraam without a need. But if there is a
need then it can be done as an exception and this is not
opposed.” Bandar bin Naa’if bin Sanahaat al-’Utaybee, Wa Jaadilhum
Bilatee Hiya Ahsan, Munaaqishatun ‘Ilmiyyatun Haadiyyatun li-19
Mas’alatin Muta’alaqatin bi-Hukkaam il-Muslimeen (Riyadh:
Maktabah Abdul Musawwir bin Muhammad bin ’Abdullaah,
1427AH/2006 CE, Fourth Edition), pp.38-42

Imam an-Nawawi mentioned the saying of Imam Shafi on this

issue stated in his explanation, vol.11-12, p.403, under hadeeth
no.4677: “His (the prophet Mohammed’s) saying: “Go back, for I do
not seek help from a mushrik; Imam Shafi and others said: ‘If the
disbeliever has good opinion of the Muslims and the need has come
to utilize him, then he is not (used) it is disliked.”’

However Ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisee stated in al-Mugnee

(vol.13, p.98): Help is not to be sought from a mushrik; this is what
Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Joozjaanee and a group of the people of
knowledge. There is present from Ahmad what indicates the
permissibility of gaining assistance from them (i.e. mushrikeen) and
the statements of al-Khirqee also indicate that, if there is a need and
this is the school of thought of Shaafi’ee.

Imam an-Nawawi stated in his explanation, vol.11-12, p.403, under

hadeeth no.4677: “His (the prophet Mohammed’s) saying: “Go back,
for I do not seek help from a mushrik; and it is mentioned in another
hadeeth that the Prophet sought help from Safwaan bin Umayyah
before his Islam, as a result some scholars give the first hadeeth
precedence over the second one (meaning they believe it is either
haram or disliked to use kuffaar armies against Muslim armies).”

From the above it is clear that issue is one in which the scholars differ
and there is no ijmah (consensus) on. So a person can choose which
ever opinion he wants to follow as both views are supported by proof
from the Sunnah of the prophet and respected scholars. This means it
is not allowed to argue over this issue or to stop talking, fight or stay
away from each other based on this issue. It is also not allowed to
label Muslims with a different view to yourself in this issue as sinners,
innovators, misguided or kuffaar.