Abu Muhammad said:
‘Abd Allah bin Rabi’ told us: Muhammad bin Mu’awiyah told us: Ahmad
bin Shu’aib told us: Muhammad bin Qudamah told us from Jarir from
Mughirah from al-Sha’bi; he said: Jarir would narrate from the Prophet
(saws); he said, "If the slave flees (from his
master), his prayer is not accepted; and if he dies, he dies as a
disbeliever," so when a boy belonging to Jarir ran away and was
captured, he struck his neck.
With the same chain to Ahmad bin Shu’aib: Qutaibah told us: Humaid
bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman told us from his father from Abu Ishaq from al-Sha’bi
from Jarir bin ‘Abd Allah al-Bajali; he said: Allah’s Messenger (saws) said, "If the slave flees to Shirk, then his blood
is permissible."
By way of Muslim: ‘Ali bin Hujr as-Sa’di told us: Isma’il bin
‘Ulayyah told us from Mansur bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman from al-Sha’bi, that he
heard Jarir saying, "Any slave who flees from those entrusted with him,
then he has disbelieved until he returns to them." Mansur said: By
Allah! This was related from Allah’s Messenger (saws), but I would not like it to be related from me here in Basra.
‘Abd Allah bin Rabi’ told us: Muhammad bin Ishaq told us: Ibn
al-A’rabi told us: Abu Dawud told us: Hannad bin as-Sari told us: Abu
Mu’awiyah bin Khazim ad-Darir told us from Isma’il bin Abi Khalid from
Qais bin Abi Hazim from Jarir bin ‘Abd Allah al-Bajali; he said: Allah’s
Messenger) sent a troop to Khath’am, so some
of their people sought protection against them by prostrating
(displaying that they were Muslims); but they were quickly put to death.
News of this reached the Prophet (saws), so he
ordered their blood money be halved [i.e. not paid in full], and he
said, "I am bari [def. "disassociated, innocent"; opposite of wali:
"ally, patron, supporter"] from every Muslim who resides between the
backs of [i.e. amongst] the Mushriks." They said, "O Messenger of Allah!
Why?" He said, "Their fires should not be visible to one another" [i.e.
as a practical matter, the campsites of two enemies should not be in
plain view of each other].
The narration of al-Sha’bi from Jarir by way of Mansur bin ‘Abd
ar-Rahman from al-Sha’bi ends with Jarir [i.e. not the Prophet], so
there is no point in engaging it while we have a fully connected chain
[i.e. to the Prophet] by way of Mughirah from al-Sha’bi. It mentions
that the slave becomes of a disbeliever due to his residence and this
apparently refers to an owned slave since the freeman is not commonly
described with "fleeing." However, the report of Abu Ishaq from
al-Sha’bi contains a clarification that this is indeed in reference to
both the freeman and the owned slave and a clarification that the
"fleeing" by which one disbelieves is the fleeing to a land of Shirk,
and this displacement affects everyone since everyone is a slave of
Allah.
This is as we reported by way of Muslim: Ishaq bin Ibrahim al-Hanzali
told us: Sufyan bin ‘Uyainah told us from al-‘Ala bin ‘Abd ar-Rahman
from his father from Abu Hurairah: I heard the Prophet (saws) saying, "Allah (Exalted) said: I have divided the prayer
between Me and between My Slave into two halves, and My Slave shall get
what he asks. When the slave says, "Praise belongs to Allah, Master of
the Worlds," Allah says, "My Slave has praised Me.""
So His (Exalted) saying "when the slave says" means both the freeman and the owned slave without a doubt.
Also, "fleeing" can be said of the freeman as well. Allah (Exalted) said, "As he fled to the laden ship (37:140), so He (Exalted) told about His Messenger, the freeman Yunus bin Matta (as), that "he fled" when he went out irritated at the command of his Master (Exalted) [i.e. he was mad at what had occurred, not that he was actually mad at Allah].
Also, "fleeing" can be said of the freeman as well. Allah (Exalted) said, "As he fled to the laden ship (37:140), so He (Exalted) told about His Messenger, the freeman Yunus bin Matta (as), that "he fled" when he went out irritated at the command of his Master (Exalted) [i.e. he was mad at what had occurred, not that he was actually mad at Allah].
We know that whoever leaves from the Domain of Islam to the Domain of
War, such has fled from Allah (Exalted) and from the Imam of the
Muslims and their Congregation. This is clarified by his saying that he is "bari [read: disassociated] from every
Muslim who resides between the backs of [i.e. amongst] the Mushriks,"
and he does not disassociate himself except from a
disbeliever. Allah (Exalted) said, "The Believer Men and Believer Women
are awliya [pl. of wali, opposite of bari] of each other (9:71).
Abu Muhammad said:
This verifies that whoever reaches the Domain of Disbelief and War
voluntarily and in opposition to the Muslims, then he is – by this
action – an apostate bound to every ruling of apostasy like the
obligation to kill him as soon as possible, the permissibility to take
his wealth, the nullification of his marriage, and other things, because
Allah’s Messenger (saws) would not disassociate
himself from a Muslim.
As for one who runs away to the land of war due to a feared
oppression and he does not oppose the Muslims and he does not offer aid
against them and he does not find a Muslim to protect him [i.e. from the
oppression he fears], then there is no punishment on him, since he is
compelled out of necessity.
We have mentioned (elsewhere) that az-Zuhri Muhammad bin Muslim bin
Shihab was determined that if Hisham bin ‘Abd al-Malik died, he would go
to a Roman land. This is because al-Walid bin Yazid made an oath to
kill him if he was able, and he [al-Walid] was going to be appointed
after Hisham. Whoever is in this situation is excused.
Likewise, any Muslim who lives in the land of India, Sindh, China,
the Turks, Sudan, or the Romans, and he was unable to leave due to some
hardship or the absence of wealth or weakness or a blockaded path, then
he is excused.
However, if he was there in opposition to the Muslims, aiding the
disbelievers with some service or conscription, then he is a
disbeliever. If he was only there to achieve some worldly gain, and he
becomes like a dhimmi to them [i.e. paying them taxes], while he is able
to meet up with the Muslim majority and their land, then he is not far
from disbelief and we do not see any excuse for him – and we ask Allah
to mend him.
This is not the case for one who lives under the people of disbelief
of the extremists [i.e. those who claim Islam, but their extremism
ejects them from Islam] and those of similar vein, like in the lands of
Egypt, al-Qairawan and others, because Islam is still dominant and the
leaders do not publicly reject Islam, but rather ascribe themselves to
Islam, even though they are actually disbelievers [note: he refers here
to the ‘Ubaidi or Fatimi sect that ruled parts of North Africa in his
time; they were extreme Shi’ah who believed in multiple deviations from
the Ijma’ before them – refer to his book al-Fisal for more on their
matter].
As for the voluntary resident in the land of the Carmathians [i.e. an
Isma’ili sect that returned to Persian paganism], then he is a
disbeliever without a doubt, because they are public with their
disbelief and their abandonment of Islam – and we seek refuge with Allah
from that.
As for one who resides in a country where only some deviant views
appear, then he is not a disbeliever since the name of Islam is overall
dominant there, as is the Tauhid [def. "considering Allah to be One and
Unique"], the acceptance of the message of Muhammad (saws), the rejection of every religion beside Islam, the
establishment of prayer, the fasting of Ramadan, and all other laws that
make up Islam and correct belief – and praise belongs to Allah, Master
of the Worlds.
The word of Allah’s Messenger (saws), "I am bari
from every Muslim who resides between the backs of the Mushriks,"
clarifies what we have said and he only meant thereby
the Domain of War. This is known as he appointed his
agents over Khaibar, and all of them were Jews [i.e. his agents were
Muslims who resided over and among the Jews of Khaibar].
Likewise, the People of Dhimmah [i.e. those Jews, Christians, and
Magians who pay the Jizyah] who completely occupy a city, if someone [of
the Muslims] resides therein as a leader over them or for some
business, he is not called a disbeliever or a sinner; he is a good
Muslim. Their domain is the Domain of Islam, not the Domain of Shirk,
because the "Domain" is only ascribed based on who conquered it, who
rules it, and who owns it.
Then, if a disbeliever conquers one of the domains of Islam, and
allows the Muslims to remain there while he maintains ownership of the
land, professing a religion other than Islam, then whoever stays there,
whether helping him or simply residing there (in peace), he is a
disbeliever, even if he claims that he is a Muslim, as we have
mentioned.
As for someone in the borderlands of the Muslims who is carried by
zealotry to seek aid from the warring Mushriks, thus turning them loose
to kill, pillage, and capture whoever opposed him of the Muslims; if he
was in charge of them and these disbelievers were like his followers,
then he is wicked to the limit of corruption, but that alone does not
make him a disbeliever, as nothing of the Qurʾan or Ijma’ necessitates
such. But if the disbelievers were in charge of him, then he is also a
disbeliever as we have mentioned. If their authority was equal, then we
do not see him thereby as a disbeliever and Allah knows best. The only
(labeled) disbeliever from whom Allah’s Messenger (saws) disassociated himself is the one who resides between the backs of
the Mushriks, and with Allah (Exalted) is success.
Source: Al-Muhalla by Ibn Hazm (rahimahUllah), 12/123-127 #2202
No comments:
Post a Comment