ALLEN HENNING: THE DAGGER OR A MUST PARDON?

By Abu Fidaa Ashami

This article was originaly published in twitter as a justpaste documment on 28th Sep 2014 by ansarukhilafah a couple of days before The Islamic State excecuted Henning.It got deleted twice.

image

NOTE: Refer to this: http://justpaste.it/AbuBaseer for the full text of the hadeeth on the story of Abu Baseer

All praise is due to Allah and peace and blessings be on his Messenger Muhammad(saw).As to what follows;

Allah says:

Say: “This is my way; invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me” {Yusuf 108}

He also says:

Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after we have made it clear for the people in the Book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers. {Al Baqarah 159}

The chatter has been growing in the social media on the legality of beheading the prisoner of war that is in the hands of The Islamic State – Allan Henning (a British Citizen). The Islamic State showed him in the video as the next in line for the beheading. This sparked debates among the students of knowledge and scholars alike worldwide. Some scholars wrote articles condemning that act saying that he was an aid worker and so it is forbidden to deal harshly with such. Some said that the prisoner had been offered protection by the Muslims in the aid convoy that he came with from Britain to Syria and some of the Muslims in Syria. They also argued that it was wrong to take him as a prisoner let alone beheading him, and evidences were quoted. And some of opportunistic hypocrites got an excuse to bash The Islamic state.

As for those who say that he is an innocent aid worker forget that what makes his blood legal to spill is the fact that he is a kafir as Allah commanded us in the ayah of the sword “Then when the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikiin (idolaters) wherever you find them” {At-Tawbah 5} and His Messenger (PBUH) clearly told us in his mutawaatir hadeeth that he was sent before the hour to fight the people until they accept Islam or pay jizyah (tax).

Shaykh Al-Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah (rh), said while discussing the two types of apostasy (Riddah); the aggressive type and the type, which is unaccompanied (with aggression towards Islam and the Muslims): “Because the one who merely apostates; we kill him for his changing his religion, then if he returns to the true religion, then that which permits his blood is removed, just as that which permits the blood of the original kafir is removed by him entering Islam.” [“As-Sārim Al-Maslūl ‘Alā Shātim Ar-Rasūl”, pages 368-369 published by “Dara Al-Kutub Al-Ilmiyyah”, Beirut]

This is the basics rule of the blood of the kuffar although there are those kuffar that the Messenger (PBUH) prohibited their killing e.g. the women (which we shall see has limits).

On the issue of protection and that it is haraam to kill someone that has been granted protection by a Muslim, we say our counter argument is the story of Abu Baseer (May Allah be pleased him).

In the story, The Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims in Al-Madinah were under peace treaty (Hudnah), which is a covenant (‘Ahd) of Amaan.However; the Muslims of Makkah were not included in this covenant (‘Ahd) and were not bound by this terms and stipulations. And so when it became clear to Abu Basiir, may Allah be pleased with him, that he was not included in this covenant (‘Ahd), he said, as it has been narrated in Al-Bukhari’s phrasing: “O Prophet of Allah, Allah has fulfilled your obligations…” showing that he was not bound by his covenant (‘Ahd) nor was he blameworthy for slaying one of his two captors and pursuing the other.

Ibn Hajar said in his explanation of the phrase: “O Prophet of Allah, Allah has fulfilled your obligations…” In other words, ‘So there is nothing upon you from them as a penalty in what I did.’ Al-Awzaai added from Az-Zuhri, ‘So Abu Baseer said, ‘O Messenger of Allah, you know that if I go to them, they will put me into Fitnah with respect to my religion. So I did what I did and there is no covenant (‘Ahd) between me and them, nor any contract (‘Ahd).’ And in it, there is (proof) that it is for the Muslim who comes from Dar Al-Harb in the time of peace treaty (Hudnah) to kill those who seek to return him if he stipulates that to them.” [“Fat’h Al-Baari”, Vol.5/429; Publication of Maktabat Dar As-Salaam & Maktabat Dar Al-Fahya 1st Edition, 1418 H.]

Furthermore, what is apparent in the Hadith is that this was not only acceptable, because Abu Basir was not bound by the covenant (‘Ahd) of the Prophet (PBUH) and the Muslims of Madinah, we see that this course of action was even hinted at, as ibn Hajar mentioned: “And in the narration of Abi Al-Mulayh the additional phrasing: ‘So Umar said to him(i.e. Abu Baseer), ‘You are a man and he is a man and you have a sword.’ And this is clearer than a hint towards killing him.” [“Fat’h Al-Baari”, Vol.5/429; Publication of Maktabat Dar As-Salaam & Maktabat Dar Al-Fahya 1st Edition, 1418 H.]

And this hinting was more than evident in the statement of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) when he said: “Woe to his mother! (What an excellent) war kindler he would be, if only he had anyone for him.”

In his explanation of this phrase, Ibn Hajar said, “…If only he had anyone for him,” in other words, to support him and assist him and help him. And in the narration of Al-Awzai: ‘So Abu Basir deduced it (i.e. figured out the hint) and then fled’ And in it, there is the suggestion for him (i.e. Abu Basir) not to return to the mushrikiin. And he [i.e. the Prophet (PBUH) ] signaled to those who were reached by this (news), from the Muslims, to follow him.The majority of the scholars from the Shafi’i and other than them said that it is allowed to hint that, but not clearly state it, as it is in this story. And Allah knows best.” [Fat’h Al-Baari”, Vol.5/428; Publication of Maktabat Dar As-Salaam & Maktabat Dar Al-Fahya 1st Edition, 1418 H.]

What is clear from the hadeeth itself,as well as the commentary of Ibn Hajar and others, is that this blood and wealth was permissible to Abu Baseer due to the fact that these mushrikeen had no covenant (‘Ahd) of Aman, which would protect them.

And Ibn Al-Qayyim said, while extracting the benefits from the story of Abu Baseer: “And from them (i.e. the benefits), is that if those with whom there is a covenant (‘Ahd), receive him and take control over him, then he kills one of them, then there is no blood-wit(Diyah) upon him, nor any retribution execution(Qisas) and the Imam does not take anything from him.Rather, his rulling would be like the rulling of his killing them in their state, as there is no ruling for the Imam in there, as Abu Baseer killed one of the two men who had a covenant (‘Ahd) at Thu Al-Hulayfah and it falls under the rulling of Al-Madinah, but they had taken control over him while he was out from under the hand of the Imam and his rulling.” [“Zaad Al-Ma’ad” Vol.3/308-309 ]

So where is the problem if the Islamic State kills Allan Henning? The one who says that The Islamic State doesn’t act according to the shariah and that they are a people bloodthirsty who don’t want to know what Allah and his Messenger say, should go further and say the same about the salaf among them Ibn Al Qayyim who endorse such.

And how fast do you forget the crimes of Britain against the sons of Islam? London is drowning in unfathomable ocean of the Muslims’ blood it spilt in Afghanistan and Iraq. How many Muslims did Britain offer protection and then again went against that by imprisoning and sending them to more hostile countries for punishment? How fast do you forget about Sheikh Abu Hamzah Al Masri and his brothers (may Allah hasten their release)?

Allah says: “But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and insult your religion, then fight the leaders of disbelief – for surely their oaths are nothing to them – so that they may stop. Will you not fight the people who have violated their oaths?” {At-Tawbah 12-13}

So it not only permissible to fight the ones who are not true to their covenant but an OBLIGATION as Allah asks us rhetorically “Will you not fight the people who have violated their oaths?”. So we shall deal with such people the same as the Prophet (PBUH) dealt with their likes.

The Prophet (PBUH) fought against the entire Quraysh, even though it was actually Banū Bakr Ibn Wā’il, or the chiefs of the Quraysh, who were the ones who violated the treaty! So we shall fight them collectively as they fight us collectively {see At-Tawbah 36} And how did the Prophet (PBUH) kill the men, the elderly, and the hired laborers of Banū Quraythah- even though they did not violate the covenant; it was only their chiefs and advisors who violated the covenant- and for their crime, 700 souls were killed, while the remaining were enslaved. So why wail about a journalist? Or an aid worker? He should not be spared for killing him is a retribution for what his brothers did.

And furthermore, it is from the justice of Islam to deal with the kuffar the same way they deal with the Muslims. If they kill our aid worker, we kill their aid worker and if they our innocent, we kill their innocent as Allah says: “Then whoever transgresses against you, transgress likewise against him.” { Al-Baqarah: 194 }

He (The Most High) also says: “And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge.The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof” { Ash-Shūrā: 39-40}

And He (The Most High) also says: “And if you punish (your enemy, O you believers), then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted” { An-Nahl: 126 }

So What is wrong if The Islamic State chooses to make London drink from the same cup the sons of islam drank? Is this what you call extremism? Walaahawla walaaquwatta illaa billah

Shaykh Ibn ‘Utheymin(rh), said in a tape recording regarding this topic:

“And the second (matter) is the forbiddance of killing women and children in times of war. But if it is said: ‘If they (the kuffār) do this to us- meaning that they kill our children and women- Then do we then kill them?’ The apparent [dhāhir] is that it is (permissible) for us to kill their women and children- And due to the generality of the Statement of Allāh: “Then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him”{ Al-Baqarah: 194}
[Refer to the side “B” from the third cassette of Kitāb al-Jihād from Sharh Bulūgh al-Marām. Starting   at time frame 29:09.Or click here to watch it]

Sheikh Abū ‘Abdillāh Usāmah Ibn Lādin(May Allah accept his martydom), said the following in an interview:

‘Taysīr Allūni:
So you say that this is treatment with the same action? They kill our innocent, so we kill theirs?

Shaykh Usāmah Ibn Lādin:
Yes, so we kill their innocents, and that is valid both religiously and logically.
[Taken from the translation of the interview by Al Jazeera Satellite channel reporter Taysīr Allūni on October 21, 2001]

So if this is the stance of our fuqahaa and our blessed Jihadi leaders as regards the innocent women and children of the kuffar what about an adult male aid worker?

Lastly, we come to the legality of killing the non-Muslim who harms not Isam or Muslims in order to pressurize the Kuffar or to cause the alliances to rive.

Imām Al-Bukhārī narrated in his Sahīh regarding the story of the spy from Khuzā’, which He(PBUH) sent to find out the issues of Quraysh, while he was traveling to ‘Umrah. And that was in the story of Hudaybiyah. So this spy informed him that Quraysh had gathered those who lived around Makkah against him, and formed a pact to fight him and his companions if he continued with the intention of entering Makkah to visit the House. So the Messenger of Allāh (PBUH) took consultation from his companions, saying: “Advise me! Do you think we should target the children of those who helped them (the enemies), so we kill them; and if they remain sitting, then they will sit as those whose families have been killed, and property been seized and if they do not come then it will be a neck, which Allāh has cut? Or do you see that we should travel to the House [Ka’bah] and then whoever prevents us from it, we fight him?” [Refer to “Musnad Ahmad” (18166), Al-Bayhaqī (9/218), An-Nasā’ī in “Al-Kubrā” (5/170), ‘Abdur-Razzāq (5/330), At-Tabarānī in “Al-Kabīr” (20/10), and similar is narrated by Al-Bukhārī (4/1531), and Ibn Abī Shaybah (7/387). Also refer to “Zād Al-Ma’ād” by Ibn al-Qayyim under the chapter of “The Pact of Hudaybiyah”.]

So in the Hadīth there is the permissibility of using the offspring and the women as a means of putting pressure upon the Mushrikīn to weaken their matter and to divide their unity, because the Prophet(PBUH) wanted to attack the women and the offspring so as to divide the allied clans away from Quraysh. So if that is the case with the innocent women and children, what about an aid worker?

And Shaykh Abu Qatada Al Filastini said the following in a treatise he wrote:

“And likewise, if we are unable to prevent the apostates from attacking the honor of the Muslims and the molestation of the women except by threatening them with the killing of their offspring and their women, then it is permissible without doubt, if not obligatory.” [Reffer to “Al-Ansār Magazine” Issue #90, Thursday Shawwāl 29, 1415 AH, March 30th, 1995 (page 10-12).]

As to what exactly should be done with Allan Henning, then that depends with The Islamic State’s leadership as that is the view of Maalik, ash-Shafi’ee, Ahmad, and the majority of scholars.It is upon the leadership to decide whether to behead him or not, depending on what will be beneficial to the ummah.

Al-Imaam Ibn al-Qayyim says: “He – sallallahu ‘alayhi wa salam – used to grant amnesty to some, and kill some, and ransom some for money and others for other prisoners of the Muslims, and he did all that in accordance with the benefit of the Muslims,” [Zaad al-Ma’aad (3/109)] and then he mentioned the evidences for each.

Shaykul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah says: “The Imaam has a choice with the prisoners to kill, enslave, ransom or grant amnesty. So it is up to him to decide what is better for the benefit of the Muslims.” [Al-Fataawa (34/116)]