Continuing our series on War and Peace in Islam, some of the extreme Jihadi-Salafi groups in Iraq began killing Christians and destroying their churches, in a country which was the heartland of the Abbasid Caliphate for 511 years. ISIS went even further and started to enslave Yazidis, whose existence pre-dates Islam and who managed to survive 1300 years of caliphal rule. A few years of ISIS ‘rule’ however and they nearly became extinct. This is evidence enough that there is nothing Islamic about ISIS let alone its claim to the caliphate.

Categories of non-Muslims entering Muslim lands

There are four main categories of non-Muslims entering either a caliphate or Muslim country. These are:

Mu’ahid
Must’amin
Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys
Dhimmi

The Mu’ahid is a citizen of a foreign state with which the state has a treaty. The citizens of this state (mu’ahideen) can enter without a passport or visa if this is reciprocated to the citizens of the Muslim state.

The Must’amin is a citizen of a foreign state with which the Muslim country has no treaty. The citizens of these states can enter, but only with a passport and valid visa. Once they have received a valid visa and enter the state, they are termed Must’amin.

The Ambassadors, diplomats, consuls and envoys from the foreign states have diplomatic immunity and the rules of Islam do not apply on them, unless they engage in disruptive and terrorist activities, in which case they have broken their Amān and will be expelled.

Non-Muslim citizens of an Islamic state are referred to as dhimmi. The word dhimmi is derived from the Arabic word dhimmah, which means pledge or covenant (‘ahd).

In terms of their right of protection a Mu’ahid, Must’amin and Dhimmi are the same.

The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ said:

مَنْ قَتَلَ نَفْسًا مُعَاهَدًا لَمْ يَرَحْ رَائِحَةَ الْجَنَّةِ، وَإِنَّ رِيحَهَا يُوجَدُ مِنْ مَسِيرَةِ أَرْبَعِينَ عَامًا

“Whoever killed a Mu’ahid shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise though its fragrance can be smelt at a distance of forty years (of traveling).”[1]

He ﷺ also said,

أَلاَ مَنْ ظَلَمَ مُعَاهِدًا أَوِ انْتَقَصَهُ أَوْ كَلَّفَهُ فَوْقَ طَاقَتِهِ أَوْ أَخَذَ مِنْهُ شَيْئًا بِغَيْرِ طِيبِ نَفْسٍ فَأَنَا حَجِيجُهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ

“Whoever wrongs a Mu’ahid, violates his rights, burdens him with more work than he can do, or takes something from him without his consent, I will be his prosecutor on the Day of Resurrection.”[2]

The famous Maliki jurist, Shaha al-Deen al-Qarafi says, “The covenant of protection (dhimmah) imposes upon us certain obligations toward the ahl al-dhimmah. They are our neighbours, under our shelter and protection upon the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger ﷺ, and the religion of Islam. Whoever violates these obligations against any one of them by so much as an abusive word, by slandering his reputation, or by doing him some injury or assisting in it, has breached the guarantee of Allah, His Messenger ﷺ, and the religion of Islam.”[3]

The treaties of dhimmah which were agreed to and signed by the previous caliphate are still in force to this day.

Dr. Muhammad Khayr Haykal says, “Therefore, the non-Muslim citizens of the Islamic lands today are the sons of those who contracted the Dhimmah with the Imam of the Muslims or his deputy. As long as the contract of Dhimmah is permanent then this dictates that those sons today in the age where the Islamic State is not present and the Imam of the Muslims is absent, still enjoy the status of the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah and the Ahkaam (rulings) related to the Ahlu-dh-Dhimmah are the same as what they were with their forefathers in the time when the Islamic State and the Imam of the Muslims were present.”[4]

The protection granted by one Muslim is binding on everyone in the state

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said,

وَذِمَّةُ الْمُسْلِمِينَ وَاحِدَةٌ يَسْعَى بِهَا أَدْنَاهُمْ فَمَنْ أَخْفَرَ مُسْلِمًا فَعَلَيْهِ لَعْنَةُ اللَّهِ وَالْمَلاَئِكَةِ وَالنَّاسِ أَجْمَعِينَ لاَ يُقْبَلُ مِنْهُ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ عَدْلٌ وَلاَ صَرْفٌ

“The protection (dhimmah) granted by Muslims is one and must be respected by the humblest of them. And he who broke the covenant made by a Muslim, there is a curse of Allah, of his angels, and of the whole people upon him, and neither an obligatory act nor a supererogatory act would be accepted from him as recompense on the Day of Resurrection.”^[5]

It is not just the government of a Muslim country or caliph that can provide protection. Every Muslim whether male or female has that right within the framework of national security. No one can give protection to terrorists and spies, and those seeking to create fasad (corruption) in the land.

This dhimmah is not the same as the dhimmah which results in someone becoming a citizen. No one has the right to provide citizenship or issue visas except the state. The type of protection mentioned by the hadith is a temporary protection in order to safeguard a civilian or prisoner of war from harm.

The protection granted by one Muslim is binding on everyone in the state

What happens if non-Muslims enter an Islamic land without an Amān?

Some have misapplied classical fatawa on to tourists, media and aid workers who enter Muslim territories. In 1998, the Aden-Abyan Islamic Army kidnapped 16 western tourists in Yemen. Twelve were rescued but four were killed during the rescue mission.^[6] In 2014, ISIS executed the British aid worker Alan Henning on fake charges of “spying”.^[7]

One prominent preacher in 1990s London said, “If a kafir person (non-believer) goes in a Muslim country, he is like a cow. Anybody can take him. That is the Islamic law.” He also said, “If a kafir is walking by and you catch him, he’s booty. You can sell him in the market. Most of them are spies. And even if they don’t do anything, if Muslims cannot take them and sell them in the market, you just kill them. It’s OK.”^[8] He is speaking here about those soldiers and spies i.e. combatants from a warring country who enter without a valid Amān. During World War One, Britain executed 11 German spies at the Tower of London.^[9] No one would see this as controversial as its war. If however, a British citizen had been involved in assisting the spies then this is clear cut treason.

It’s important to note that Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence) is a scholar’s interpretation of the sharia. The word fiqh itself means understanding. As highlighted in a previous article, there are a multitude of fatawas related to the topic of war in Islam. To reiterate the point again, none of these apply when there is no war such as a treaty between countries.

With regards to ‘finding’ a disbeliever in an Islamic land, Ahmed Al-Dawoody outlines the strongest position in this regard. “Furthermore, interestingly enough, Ibn Qudāmah [d.1223CE] advocates that the mere fact of the enemy belligerent’s attempt to peacefully enter Muslim territory entitles him to amān. Ibn Qudāmah states that the enemy’s action in itself signifies that he assumes he will be safe and this resembles the case of amān granted by a gesture from a Muslim.^[10] In other words, what Ibn Qudāmah is advocating here is that enemy belligerents are automatically entitled to the status of amān if they ever require it. He thus envisages the case of an enemy belligerent who is captured inside Muslim territory and then claims that he came as a musta’min. In this case, Ibn Qudāmah argues that if the enemy was not carrying weapons upon his capture, he is entitled to amān because this is an indication that he did not come to commit acts of war. This situation is similar to the modern act of carrying a white flag. But if an enemy belligerent is caught carrying weapons upon his capture, his claim to amān is unacceptable because his weapons indicate that he came as a ‘warrior.’”^[11]

Ibn Qudamah mentions that only the caliph and his deputies (governors and wazirs) can conclude treaties, grant citizenship and declare ceasefires. The Imam is the commander-in-chief and has full authority in foreign policy affairs.

فإن هادنهم غير الإمام أو نائبه، لم يصح. وإن دخل بعضهم دار الإسلام بهذا الصلح، كان آمنا؛ لأنه دخل معتقدا للأمان، ويرد إلى دار الحرب، ولا يقر في دار الإسلام؛ لأن الأمان لم يصح

“If someone other than the Imam or his deputy makes a truce (hudna) with them, it is invalid. If some of them enter the land of Islam under this truce (sulh), they are considered safe, because they entered believing in the guarantee of safety (Amān). However, they are returned to the land of war (Dar al-Harb) and are not allowed to remain in the land of Islam, because the Amān was not valid.”^[12]

It’s clear here that if we ‘find’ non-Muslim civilians in an Islamic land, then they are automatically protected. If they don’t have a valid visa then they will be deported. This is no different to any state in the world today.

This would also apply to foreign troops and intelligence agencies that exist in Muslim countries. The current regime may have provided an Amān to them which is upheld, but a new Islamic government will order their immediate expulsion.

In January 2023, Burkina Faso’s government formally announced the termination of its military agreement with France. This decision required the withdrawal of approximately 400 French special forces personnel from the country within a one-month period.[13]

Abdul-Qadeem Zallum (d.2003) mentioned the normative Islamic position with regards the Amān after the 1998 American embassy bombing in Tanzania. This caused some anger in Jihadi-Salafi circles who were operating in ‘Londonistan’ at the time. “We do not mean that by taking America as an enemy that we bomb the embassies or attack the people. Because Islam orders us to protect the covenant of protection (Amān) for whoever we gave it to. But when America hits us on our own ground and destroys our factories and homes and kills us without respecting any ties or covenants as if we are insects that have no sanctity or dignity, without any justification, in addition to her previous aggression, what would the world expect of Muslims?

However, we do not call for the Islamic peoples to take revenge from those to whom we gave a covenant of protection (Amān) in our lands. We rather say the Muslims rulers must treat America and those who supported her as an arrogant enemy, by severing the relationships, closing down the embassies, stopping all trade and all dealings, expelling their citizens, and freezing their assets.

More importantly, the Muslim’s rulers must abolish any more political treaties and expel all military forces and to close down any military. They must also close their waters, lands and spaces to entry or passage from any of the enemy states. They have also to break off any influence and remove any agent or spy for these states in the Islamic lands.”[14]