The standard boilerplate that has lately been spewing out of the mouths of ignorant westerners is that “IS is unIslamic,” an extension of the argument that Jihadists are somehow “hijacking” Islam and then “twisting” it to their purposes.
Now it is true that a significant body of Orthodox Sunni Islam, theologically centered on Saudi Arabia (The Land of the Two Holy Mosques) and Egypt (home of Al-Azhar University) rejects the legitimacy of the Islamic State. These disputes are legalistic in nature, regarding whether or not IS have the divine sanction necessary to make their state and Jihad religiously legitimate.
Now, IS makes a compelling case of their own, a case that is based in traditional Islamic doctrines (primarily of the Hanbali and Shafii schools, see below, part 8) but adapted for contemporary circumstances – such as the cultural and technological difficulties posed by Western globalism, and the lack of martial, political, and economic power in the Muslim world.
These rather obscure theological debates might indeed make the IS group in particular obsolete, if those traditional Muslim authorities making them win out (and there is no guarantee that they will). But obviously these disagreements are not what popes and politicians are referring to, when they say that IS is “unIslamic,” and it’s certainly not how western audiences interpret it.
When westerners say “IS is unIslamic,” what they mean to say is that killing blasphemers and apostates, crucifying and amputating people, forcing people to convert or flee, dealing in slaves, and Jihad to impose the faith, are all unIslamic – and that is just blatantly false.
Militants with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group publicly killed a rights lawyer in the Iraqi city of Mosul after their self-styled Islamic court ruled that she had abandoned Islam
from the Risala, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh, by Abdallah al-Qayrawani
40.18. Taking a Muslim’s life or property
40.18a. The basic ruling
Allah Almighty has made the blood of Muslims, their property and their honour inviolable except for a right.
40.18b. The exceptions to that rule
The life of a Muslim is not lawful unless he apostasies after belief, commits illicit sex after he is muhsan, kills someone when it is not a case of retaliation, or engages in corruption in the earth or renounces the deen.
[ The exception to this inviolability is for a legal right, which refers to the three matters which he mentioned. In property, anyone who destroys something must pay for it.
The cases when taking life is permitted are indicated here. In the case of apostasy, he is asked to repent for three days. “Corruption in the earth” is banditry and highway robbery. Renouncing the deen is to embrace the dogma of the people of the sects about whom the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “They will pass through the deen like an arrow passes through game.” In the Misbah, it goes through one side and comes out the other. ]
from Reliance of the Traveller, a treatise on Shafii fiqh, by Ahmad al-Masri
o8.1 When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed… o8.4 There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die).
o1.1 – Retaliation
Retaliation is obligatory (A: if the person entitled wishes to take it (dis: o3.8)) against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right. (O: Intentionally is a first restriction and excludes killing someone through an honest mistake, while purely excludes a mistake made in a deliberate injury (def: o2.3), and without right excludes cases of justifiable homicide such as lawful retaliation.) [back to top]
o1.2 The following are not subject to retaliation:
-1- a child or insane person, under any circumstances
-2- a Muslim for killing a non-Muslim;
-3- a Jewish or Christian subject of the Islamic state for killing an apostate from Islam (O: because a subject of the state is under its protection, while killing an apostate from Islam is without consequences);
The Shafi´ites, Hanbalites and Malikites say: The verdict for the female apostate is the same as for the male. She must be called on to return to Islam for three days, prior to her death, for an evil-doer may have confused her understanding; thus the possibility exists for her being released from her confusion. Offering the apostate a time limit for repentance has been approved.
According to a tradition related by Daruqutni, quoting from Djabir b. Abdillah, the Prophet offered Islam to a woman named Ummu Rumman who had previously apostatised. Furthermore, the Prophet said, “It is good if she repents. If she does not, she is to be killed, since by apostasy she should be treated like a woman who has fought against Muslims, being taken captive in a holy war (jihad); thus it is lawful to kill her with the sword. Moreover, her guilt is far more abominable than women who are taken captive in a holy war, since she has become a Muslim.”
The Prophet — the blessing and peace of Allah be upon him — said, “He who changes his religion must be killed”; this holds true both for men and women. The apostasy of a man calls for putting him to death. It is unanimously agreed upon that apostasy is a horrible crime deserving a horrible punishment. The apostasy of a woman is no less horrible. Therefore, it too deserves a corresponding punishment: death.
from Islam Q&A
The punishment for apostasy from the religion of Islam is execution. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“And whosoever of you turns back from his religion and dies as a disbeliever, then his deeds will be lost in this life and in the Hereafter, and they will be the dwellers of the Fire. They will abide therein forever”
And it was proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh. What this hadeeth means is that whoever leaves Islam and changes to another religion and persists in that and does not repent, is to be executed. It was also proven that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a person who bears witness that there is no god but Allaah and that I am the Messenger of Allaah except in three cases: a life for a life, a previously-married person who commits adultery, and one who leaves Islam and forsakes the jamaa’ah.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari and Muslim.
This harsh punishment is for a number of reasons:
1 – This punishment is a deterrent to anyone who wants to enter Islam just to follow the crowd or for hypocritical purposes. This will motivate him to examine the matter thoroughly and not to proceed unless he understands the consequences of that in this world and in the Hereafter. The one who announces his Islam has agreed to adhere to all the rulings of Islam of his own free will and consent, one of which rulings is that he is to be executed if he apostatizes from the faith.
2 – The one who announces his Islam has joined the jamaa’ah (main body) of the Muslims, and whoever joins the main body of the Muslims is required to be completely loyal and to support it and protect it against anything that may lead to fitnah or destroy it or cause division. Apostasy from Islam means forsaking the jamaa’ah and its divine order, and has a harmful effect on it. Execution is the greatest deterrent that will prevent people from committing such a crime.
3 – Those Muslims who are weak in faith and others who are against Islam may think that the apostate has only left Islam because of what he has found out about its real nature, because if it were the truth then he would never have turned away from it. So they learn from him all the doubts, lies and fabrications which are aimed at extinguishing the light of Islam and putting people off from it. In this case executing the apostate is obligatory, in order to protect the true religion from the defamation of the liars and to protect the faith of its adherents and remove obstacles from the path of those who are entering the faith.
4 – We also say that the death penalty exists in the modern laws of man to protect the system from disorder in some situation and to protect society against certain crimes which may cause its disintegration, such as drugs etc. If execution can serve as a deterrent to protect man-made systems, then it is more appropriate that the true religion of Allaah, which Falsehood cannot come to it from before it or behind it [cf. Fussilat 41:42], and which is all goodness, happiness and tranquility in this world and in the Hereafter should punish those who commit acts of aggression against it and seek to extinguish its light and defame its image, and who fabricate lies against it to justify their apostasy and deviation.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 21/234-231.
Speaking of the authority of the punishment and its being genuine and based on the authentic sources of Islam, Sheikh `Attiyah Saqr, former Head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, states:
“It is not right to deny the punishment of apostasy claiming that it has not been reported in the Qur’an, because it has been recorded in the mutawatir (Hadith which has been reported by at least four of the Companions in different times and places in a way that make a person sure that such Hadith is not fabricated) and the non-mutawatir Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessing be upon him). Hudud (Islamic punishment specified for certain crimes) may, of course, be based on the non-mutawatir Sunnah.”
Detailing the issue and showing some of the evidence for the punishment of apostasy, the prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states:
“All Muslim jurists agree that the apostate is to be punished. However, they differ regarding the punishment itself. The majority of them go for killing; meaning that an apostate is to be sentenced to death.
Many authentic Hadiths have been reported in this regard. Ibn
Abbas reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “Whoever changes his religion, you kill him.” (Reported by all the group except Muslim, and at-Tabarani also reported it with a sound chain of narrators. Also recorded in MajmaAz-Zawa’id by Al-Haythamiy.)
There is also the Hadith of Ibn Mas`ud that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “The blood of a Muslim individual who bears witness that there is no god but Allah and that I am the Messenger of Allah, is not to be shed except in three cases: in retaliation (in murder crimes), married adulterers (and adulteresses), and the one who abandons his religion and forsakes the Muslim community.” (Reported by the Group)
The actual example of one of the greatest Companions, `Ali ibn Abi Talib (may Allah be pleased with him) gives credit to this also. He himself carried out the punishment on some people who had deified him. He gave them three days respite to repent and go back to their senses. When they proved adamant, he put them to fire.”
2. KILLING BLASPHEMERS [AND THOSE WHO SPREAD “MISCHIEF”]
* *A self-declared police force loyal to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria decapitated four men in western Syria after accusing them of blasphemy
from Ibn Taymiyyah, in The Drawn Sword against those who insult the Messenger
Whoever Curses the Prophet Peace and Blessings be Upon him, Muslim or Kafir, Must be Killed. . . “The general scholars agreed that whoever curses him, Peace and Blessings be upon him, must be killed. This was stated by Malik, Al-Layth, Ahmad, Ishaaq, and Ash-Shafi’ee, and Nu’man (Abu Hanifa) said that the Dhimmi (Jizya-paying non-Muslim) is not to be killed.”
from Tafsir Ibn-Kathir, The Meaning of Mischief and The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land
(And when it is said to them: “Do not make mischief on the earth,), means, “Do not commit acts of disobedience on the earth. Their mischief is disobeying Allah, because whoever disobeys Allah on the earth, or commands that Allah be disobeyed, he has committed mischief on the earth. Peace on both the earth and in the heavens is ensured (and earned) through obedience (to Allah). Ar-Rabi` bin Anas and Qatadah said similarly. . .
(The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land…) “Was revealed concerning the idolators, those among them who repent before being apprehended, they will still be liable for punishment for the crimes they committed. The correct opinion is that this Ayah is general in meaning and includes the idolators and all others who commit the types of crimes the Ayah mentioned. Al-Bukhari and Muslim recorded that Abu Qilabah
Abdullah bin Zayd Al-Jarmi, said that Anas bin Malik said, “Eight people of theUkl tribe came to the Messenger of Allah and gave him their pledge to follow Islam. Al-Madinah’s climate did not suit them and they became sick and complained to Allah’s Messenger .
from Islam Q&A
Waging war against Islam is not limited only to fighting with weapons, rather it may be done verbally such as defaming Islam or the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or attacking the Qur’aan, and so on. Waging verbal war against Islam may be worse than waging war against it with weapons in some cases.
Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said:
Muhaarabah (waging war against Islam) is of two types: physical and verbal. Waging war verbally against Islam may be worse than waging war physically – as stated above – hence the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) used to kill those who waged war against Islam verbally, whilst letting off some of those who waged war against Islam physically. This ruling is to be applied more strictly after the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Mischief may be caused by physical action or by words, but the damage caused by words is many times greater than that caused by physical action; and the goodness achieved by words in reforming may be many times greater than that achieved by physical action. It is proven that waging war against Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) verbally is worse and the efforts on earth to undermine religion by verbal means is more effective.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 3/735 a
from Islam Q&A
Defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) is a kind of kufr. If that is done by a Muslim then it is apostasy on his part, and the authorities have to defend the cause of Allaah and His Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) by executing the one who defamed him. If the one who defamed him repents openly and is sincere, that will benefit him before Allaah, although his repentance does not waive the punishment for defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which is execution. If the person who defames him is a non-Muslim living under a treaty with the Muslim state, then this is a violation of the treaty and he must be executed, but that should be left to the authorities. If a Muslim hears a Christian or anyone else defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he has to denounce him in strong terms. It is permissible to insult that person because he is the one who started it. How can we not stand up the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadd punishment of Allaah and stand up for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then the Muslim has to do whatever he can, so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people.
from Islam Q&A
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) sometimes chose to forgive those who had insulted him, and sometimes he ordered that they should be executed, if that served a greater purpose. But now his forgiveness is impossible because he is dead, so the execution of the one who insults him remains the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the believers, and the one who deserves to be executed cannot be let off, so the punishment must be carried out.
Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/438
Insulting the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)* is one of the worst of forbidden actions, and it constitutes kufr and apostasy from Islam, according to scholarly consensus, whether done seriously or in jest. *The one who does that is to be executed even if he repents and whether he is a Muslim or a kaafir.
from Islam Q&A
… [T]he one who deliberately tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) should be killed. Among those who were of this view were some who said that the one who does that becomes a kaafir thereby. This was the view of several including Abu Muhammad al-Juwayni. Ibn ‘Aqeel quoted his Shaykh, Abu’l-Fadl al-Hamdaani, as saying: “The innovators, liars and fabricators of hadeeth are worse than the heretics because the heretics want to attack Islam from without but these people want to attack it from within. They are like people who try to destroy a city from within whilst the heretics are like those who are laying siege to it from without, and those who are inside open up the fortress. So they are more dangerous to Islam than those who do not appear outwardly to be Muslims.” The main point of this opinion is that telling lies about him (the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)) is tantamount to telling lies about Allaah. Hence he said: “Telling lies about me is not like telling lies about one of you.” What the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded is what Allaah commanded, and it must be followed just as the commands of Allaah must be followed. Whatever he told us must be believed, just as whatever Allaah told us must be believed. Whoever rejects what he told us or refuses to follow his command is like one who rejects what Allaah told us or refuses to follow the command of Allaah. It is well known that the one who tells lies about Allaah by claiming to be a messenger or prophet of Allaah, or tells false things about Allaah, such as Musaylimah and other fabricators of his ilk, is a kaafir whose blood may be shed, and the same applies to one who tells lies about the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Thus it is clear that telling lies about him is tantamount to disbelieving in him. Hence Allaah mentions the two things together in the verse where He says (interpretation of the meaning): “And who does more wrong than he who invents a lie against Allaah or denies the truth, when it comes to him?” [al-‘Ankaboot 29:68]
2 – The liar is to be punished severely, but he is not regarded as a kaafir and it is not permissible to kill him, because the factors that determine who is a kaafir and is to be killed are well known and this is not one of them. It is not permissible to affirm something for which there is no basis. Whoever says that he is not to be executed has to stipulate that telling lies about the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) does not imply any criticism or defamation of him. But if he says that he heard him say something that implies belittling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or criticizing him, such as the hadeeth about “the sweat of horses” and other such silly fabrications, this is obviously mocking him, and the one who says this is undoubtedly a kaafir whose blood may be shed. Those who were of the view that such a person is not to be executed responded to this hadeeth by saying that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) knew that he was a hypocrite so he killed him for that and not for lying, but this answer does not count for anything.
Muhammad ibn Sahnun said that even if a man claims that it is part of his religion to insult the Messenger, and so in his religion it is lawful, that makes no difference to us. If he openly insults our Messenger, *may Allah bless him and grant him peace, then our religion makes it lawful to kill him.* This surely is the inescapable centre of the current affair. *The arrogant kuffar have to learn that the world contains a two-billion community who have a different set of Laws from theirs, and who can never be detached from that Law, for while their laws are inspired by fear, ours are inspired by love. *Qadi ‘Iyad gives an interesting narration on Malik that could be said to represent exactly the emotion of the millions of Muslims across the world that have been so disturbed by this affair.
“Ibn al-Qasim said that Malik was asked about a christian in Egypt against whom there was testimony that he had insulted the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. The evidence was very distressing. They asked whether they should kill him so that people would be saved from him. Finally Malik said that he thought the man should be beheaded. After that, Imam Malik added, ‘I almost did not say anything about it, but then I realised that I could not remain silent.’”
The judgment of the Shari‘ah regarding someone who curses or disparages the Prophet. QADI ‘IYAD IBN MUSA AL-YAHSUBI, one of the greatest of the Fuqaha of the School of the ‘Amal of the Ahl al-Madinah, which has been called the ‘Umm al-Madhahib (and which was given precedence in its judgments over all the Madhhabs by Ibn Taymiyya in a renowned book), DECLARED:
“Know that all who curse Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, or blame him or attribute imperfection to him in his person, his lineage, his deen or any of his qualities, or alludes to that or its like by any means whatsoever, whether in the form of a curse or contempt or belittling him or detracting from him or finding fault with him or maligning him, the judgement regarding such a person is the same as the judgement against anyone who curses him. He is killed as we shall make clear. This judgement extends to anything which amounts to a curse or disparagement. We have no hesitation concerning this matter, be it a clear statement or allusion.
The same applies to anyone who curses him, invokes against him, desires to harm him, ascribes to him what does not befit his position or jokes about his mighty affair with foolish talk, satire, disliked words or lies, or reviles him because of any affliction or trial which happened to him or disparages him, because of any of the permissible and well-known human events which happened to him. All of this is the consensus of the ‘ulama’ and the imams of fatwa from the time of the Companions until today.
from Dr. Liyakatali Takim, ‘Aalim Network QR
Blasphemy, by definition refers to uttering profane language, insulting or abusing or calumniating that which is sacred in religion. The punishment for blasphemious acts are normally covered in Kitab al-Hudud in our juridical texts.
According to Ayatullah al-Khu’i, it is incumbent (wajib) to kill one who insults or calumniates the Prophet when one hears the insults provided there is no danger to his self, reputation or wealth. Agha also extends this ruling to cover insults against the Imams and Bibi Fatima (A.S.). It is not essential to get the permission of a Hakim al-Shar’ to carry out the act.
Agha even says it is wajib to kill one who lays claims to nubuwwa taking the above stated precautions into account.
Another man, wearing a white robe of the kind favored in Arab Gulf countries, is reading a statement. A caption states that the blindfolded man is a thief who had asked to have his hand cut off “in order to cleanse his sins.”
o14.0 THE PENALTY FOR THEFT
O14.1 A person’s right hand is amputated, whether he is a Muslim, non-Muslim subject of the Islamic state, or someone who has left Islam, when he:
(a) has reached puberty;
(b) is sane;
(c) is acting voluntarily;
(d) and steals at least a quarter of a dinar (n: 1.058 grams of gold) or goods worth that much (A:at
the market price current) at the time of the theft:
(e) from a place meeting the security requirements normal (A: in that locality and time for safeguarding similar articles (def: o14.3);
(f) provided there is no possible confusion (dis: o14.2(3)) as to whether he took it by way of theft or for some other reason.
If a person steals a second time, his left foot is amputated; if a third time, then his left hand; and if he steals again, then his right foot. If he steals a fifth time, he is disciplined (def: o17). If he does not have a right hand (N: at the first offense), then his left foot is amputated. If he has a right hand but loses it after the theft (O: by an act of God) but before he has been punished for it, then nothing is amputated.
After amputation, the limb is cauterized with hot oil (A: which in previous times was the means to stop the bleeding and save the criminal’s life)
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported Tuesday that it received a video showing fighters believed to be ISIS militants stoning a woman to death in the presence of her father after accusing her of adultery.
The present-day Qur’an does not explicitly mention the act, but according to hadith, the Qur’anic verses of stoning were written on a piece of paper and were lost when a goat ate it:
[Narrated ‘Aisha] “The verse of the stoning and of suckling an adult ten times were revealed,* and they were (written) on a paper and kept under my bed.* When the messenger of Allah expired and we were preoccupied with his death, a goat entered and ate away the paper.”
Musnad Ahmad bin Hanbal. vol. 6. p. 269; Sunan Ibn Majah, p. 626; Ibn Qutbah, Tawil Mukhtalafi ‘l-Hadith (Cairo: Maktaba al-Kulliyat al-Azhariyya. 1966) p. 310; As-Suyuti, ad-Durru ‘l-Manthur, vol. 2. p. 13
Ibn Mardawayh reported that Hudhayfah said: “Umar said to me ‘How many verses are contained in the chapter of al-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘72 or 73 verses.’ He said it was almost as long as the chapter of the Cow, which contains 287 verses, and in it there was the verse of stoning.”
Al-Muttaqi ‘Ali bin Husam al-Din in his book “Mukhtasar Kanz al-’Ummal” printed on the margin of Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Vol. 2, p. 2, in his hadith about chapter 33
Zirr ibn Hubaish reported: “Ubayy ibn Ka’b said to me, ‘What is the extent of Suratul-Ahzab?’ I said, ‘Seventy, or seventy-three verses’. He said, ‘Yet it used to be equal to Suratul-Baqarah and in it we recited the verse of stoning’. I said, ‘And what is the verse of stoning’? He replied, ‘The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.”‘
As-Suyuti, Al-Itqan fii Ulum al-Qur’an, p.524
see Bukhari, 2:23:413, 3:34:421, 3:49:860, 3:50:885, 4:56:829, 6:60:79, 7:63:195- 196, 7:63:230, 8:78:629, 8:82:803, 8:82:805-806, 8:82:809-810, 8:82:813, 8:82:816, 8:82:842, 9:89:303, 9:92:432, 9:93:633
see also Ibn Majah, 3:9:1944
from Islam Online
Al-Bahuty said: “The authentic practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)* supports stoning to death* as a punishment specified for adultery. In addition, the verse commanding this punishment was revealed in the Qur’an. Later, it was verbally abrogated but its ruling is still binding.
. . .
Stoning to death is a Divine obligation and punishment specified for any married adulterer or adulteress once there is four witnesses or the confession of the accused.”
. . .
Finally,* we would like to note that there are many incidents in the Sunnah and the life of the Prophet* (peace and blessings be upon him) in which the Prophet stoned the married adulterer and adulteress to death. This happened in the case of Ma`iz and the Ghamidi woman. All this makes it clear that the punishment is proven and authentic and is not debatable.
from Islam Q&A
Based on this, it is not permissible to replace stoning with killing by the sword or shooting, because stoning is a more severe punishment and a more effective deterrent to the sin of zina, which is the most grave sin after shirk and killing a soul whom Allaah has forbidden us to kill. The hadd punishment of stoning for a married person who commits zina is one of the matters that is determined by the Qur’aan and Sunnah and there is no room for ijtihaad or personal opinion. If killing by the sword or shooting were permissible in the case of the married adulterer then the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) would have done that and would have explained it to his ummah, and his companions after him would have done that too.
Fataawa al-Lajnah al-Daa’imah, 22/48-49.
In 2014, an unknown number of Syrians, several Lebanese soldiers, at least 10 Kurds, two American journalists, one American and two British aid workers, have been beheaded by the Islamic state in Iraq and the Levant.
from the Sirah Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq
Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka
b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Kab what he thought would be done with them. He replied, ‘Will you never understand? Don’t you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!’ This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, ‘By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.’ Then he went to the men and said, ‘God’s command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.’ Then he sat down and his head was struck off.
Crucifixions have been meted out by Isis across Syria as punishment to rebels
o15.2 If a highwayman kills someone, he must be executed, even when the person entitled to retaliation (def: o3) agrees to forgo it. If the highwayman robs and kills, he is killed and then left crucified for three days. If he wounds or maims someone, retaliation is taken against him, though it may be waived by those entitled to take it.
o15.3 (N: The penalty for highway robbery, such as mandatory execution, crucifixion, and amputating the hand and foot, is cancelled if the highwayman repents…
from the Risala, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh
37.20 BANDITRY (HIRABA)
As for an armed robber – he is not to be granted pardon when he is caught. If he happens to have killed someone, then he must be killed. But if he has not killed anybody, the Muslim ruler shall then use his discretion as to the nature of the punishment to be awarded to him, based on the seriousness of his crimes and the length of the time during which he operated. The Muslim ruler can kill him, or crucify him and later kill him, or he can cut off his right hand and left foot, or left hand and right foot. Alternatively the Muslim ruler can banish him to another town where he will be imprisoned until he repents. But if he has not been overpowered and caught and he comes on his own to repent, then the Muslim ruler shall forgive him and excuse him from whatever punishment his crime has earned for him in respect of his disobedience to God Most High. Then he shall be liable for any punishment his crime has earned for him in respect of his assault on the property and the persons of other people.
They all feared persecution at the hands of the insurgents who had suddenly arrived in their midst because they follow a harsh 7th century interpretation of the Qur’an that demands not only that women mostly stay indoors, but that church bells must never be rung, crosses must never be displayed and Christians must pay a “gold tax” in return for their lives.
see Qur’an 9:29
from al-Tabari, Vol. 9, p. 75
He who holds fast to his religion, Judaism or Christianity, is not to be tempted from it.* It is incumbent on them to pay the jizyah protection tax.* For every adult, male or female, free or slave, one full denarius, or its value in al-ma’afir [fine cloth]. He who pays that to the Messenger has the protection of Allah and His Messenger, and he who holds back from it is the enemy of Allah and His Messenger.
from al-Tabari, Vol. 11,
“I call you to God and to Islam. If you respond to the call, then you are Muslims: You obtain the benefits they enjoy and take up the responsibilities they bear. If you refuse, then you must pay the jizyah. If you refuse the jizyah, I will bring against you tribes of people who are more eager for death than you are for life. We will then fight you until God decides between us and you.”
from Ahmed Sirhindi, letter No. 163
The honour of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects the kafirs dishonours the Muslims… The real purpose of levying jiziya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honour and might of Islam.
from the Risala, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh
25.13a. Who pays jizya
Jizya is taken from the men of the people of dhimma status provided that they are both free and adult. It is not taken from their women, their children, or their slaves.
[Ibn Rushd defines it thus: *what is taken from the people of disbelief in repayment for their security and sparing their lives while they remain unbelievers. *It is derived from jaza’ (repayment) which is exchange, because they receive security in exchange for the money they pay. We offer them security and they offer money. It is not taken from three categories: women, children and slaves because Allah Almighty has obliged it on those who can fight, and generally that is men rather than women and children.]
from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Paying Jizyah is a Sign of Kufr and Disgrace
Allah said, (until they pay the Jizyah), if they do not choose to embrace Islam, (with willing submission), in defeat and subservience, (and feel themselves subdued.), disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated. Muslim recorded from Abu Hurayrah that the Prophet said, “Do not initiate the Salam to the Jews and Christians, and if you meet any of them in a road, force them to its narrowest alley.” *This is why the Leader of the faithful `Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, demanded his well-known conditions be met by the Christians, these conditions that ensured their continued humiliation, degradation and disgrace.*
. . .
* “I recorded for Umar bin Al-Khattab, may Allah be pleased with him, the terms of the treaty of peace he conducted with the Christians of Ash-Sham: *
`In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. *
This is a document to the servant of Allah Umar, the Leader of the faithful, from the Christians of such and such city. *
When you (Muslims) came to us we requested safety for ourselves, children, property and followers of our religion. *
We made a condition on ourselves that we will neither erect in our areas a monastery, church, or a sanctuary for a monk, nor restore any place of worship that needs restoration nor use any of them for the purpose of enmity against Muslims. *
We will not prevent any Muslim from resting in our churches whether they come by day or night, and we will open the doors (of our houses of worship) for the wayfarer and passerby. *
* Those Muslims who come as guests, will enjoy boarding and food for three days. *
- We will not allow a spy against Muslims into our churches and homes or hide deceit (or betrayal) against Muslims. *
* We will not teach our children the Qur’an, publicize practices of Shirk, invite anyone to Shirk or prevent any of our fellows from embracing Islam, if they choose to do so. *
* We will respect Muslims, move from the places we sit in if they choose to sit in them. *
* We will not imitate their clothing, caps, turbans, sandals, hairstyles, speech, nicknames and title names, or* ride on saddles,* hang swords on the shoulders,* collect weapons of any kind or carry these weapons. **
* We will not encrypt our stamps in Arabic, or sell liquor. *
* We will have the front of our hair cut, wear our customary clothes wherever we are, wear belts around our waist, refrain from erecting crosses on the outside of our churches and demonstrating them and our books in public in Muslim fairways and markets. *
* We will not sound the bells in our churches, except discretely, or raise our voices while reciting our holy books inside our churches in the presence of Muslims, nor raise our voices (with prayer) at our funerals, or light torches in funeral processions in the fairways of Muslims, or their markets. *
* We will not bury our dead next to Muslim dead, or buy servants who were captured by Muslims. *
* We will be guides for Muslims and refrain from breaching their privacy in their homes.’ *
When I gave this document to Umar, he added to it, *
We will not beat any Muslim. *
These are the conditions that we set against ourselves and followers of our religion in return for safety and protection. If we break any of these promises that we set for your benefit against ourselves, then our Dhimmah (promise of protection) is broken and you are allowed to do with us what you are allowed of people of defiance and rebellion.”’ *
from the Al-Kashshaaf of Al-Zamakhshari
(‘an yadin): does this refers to the hand of the giver or the receiver? It refers to the giver, i.e. from a forthcoming rather than a withholding hand. For he who refuses and withholds doesn’t proffer his hand, as opposed to the reluctant obeyer. [proverb example]-not by someone deputized, but directly from the hand of the [dhimmi]. The hand of the taker means that [when he takes it] his hand is the upper, the ruler; or, because of the benefit [to the dhimmis] because receiving the jizya from them and lowering their spirits is of benefit to them. (wa-hum Saarighuuna) it is taken from them when they are in a lowered and humbled state.* [The dhimmi] must approach walking, not riding; the taker is standing while the giver is sitting and trembling in awe /Iyutaltilu taltalatanl/. He is seized by his collar, and is told: “Perform the jizya,” and is pushed on the nape of his neck* /yuzakhkhu/.
from The Secrets of Revelation and The Secrets of Interpretation by al-Baidawi
..on the authority of Ibn Abbas…that the jizya is taken from the dhimmi, [while] his neck is being hung low.
“…(Fight with them) until they pay Jizyah with their own hands and are humbled.”
This is the aim of Jihad with the Jews and the Christians and it is not to force them to become Muslims and adopt the `Islamic Way of Life.’ They should be forced to pay Jizyah in order to put an end to their independence and supremacy so that they should not remain rulers and sovereigns in the land.These powers should be wrested from them by the followers of the true Faith, who should assume the sovereignty and lead others towards the Right Way, while they should become their subjects and pay jizyah.* jizyah is paid by those non-Muslims who live as Zimmis (proteges) in an Islamic State, in exchange for the security and protection granted to them by it. This is also symbolical of the fact that they themselves agree to live in it as its subjects. This is the significance of “….. they Pay jizyah with their own hands,” that is, “with full consent so that they willingly become the subjects of the Believers, who perform the duty of the vicegerents of Allah on the earth. “*
At first this Command applied only to the Jews and the Christians. Then the Holy Prophet himself extended it to the Zoroastrians also. After his death, his Companions unanimously applied this rule to all the non-Muslim nations outside Arabia.
This is jizyah ” of which the Muslims have been feeling apologetic during the last two centuries of their degeneration and there are still some people who continue to apologize for it. But the Way of Allah is straight and clear and does not stand in need of any apology to the rebels against Allah. Instead of offering apologies on behalf of Islam for the measure that guarantees security of life, property and faith to those who choose to live under its protection, the Muslims should feel proud of such a humane law as that of jizyah. For it is obvious that the maximum freedom that can be allowed to those who do not adopt the Way of Allah but choose to tread the ways of error is that they should be tolerated to lead the life they like. That is why the Islamic State offers them protection, if they agree to live as its Zimmis by paying jizyah, but it cannot allow that they should remain supreme rulers in any place and establish wrong ways and impose them on others. As this state of things inevitably produces chaos and disorder, it is the duty of the true Muslims to exert their utmost to bring to an end their wicked rule and bring them under a righteous order.
As regards the question, “What do the non-Muslims get in return for Jizyah ” it may suffice to say that it is the price of the freedom which the Islamic State allows them in following their erroneous ways, while living in the jurisdiction of Islam and enjoying its protection. The money thus collected is spent in maintaining the righteous administration that gives them the freedom and protects their rights. This also serves as a yearly reminder to them that they have been deprived of the honor of paying Zakat in the Way of Allah, and forced to pay jizyah instead as a price of following the ways of error.
from Al-Ghazali, Kitab al-Wagiz
… [T]he dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle … Jews, Christians, and Majins must pay the jizya … on offering up the jizya, the dhimmi must hang his head while the official takes hold of his beard and hits [the dhimmi] on the protuberant bone beneath his ear *[i.e. the mandible]. … They are not permitted to ostentatiously display their wine or church bells … their houses may not be higher than the Muslim’s, no matter how low that is. *The dhimmi may not ride an elegant horse or mule; he may ride a donkey only if the saddle is of wood. He may not walk on the good part of the road. They have to wear [an identifying] patch, even women, and even in the [public] baths … [dhimmis] must hold their tongue…
see Qur’an 2:216, 8:39-40, the entirety of chapter 9 but the highlights are: 9:5, 9:14, 9:29, 9:111, 9:123
Salafists believe that jihad must be performed under legitimate leadership. This argument is advanced through the “banner and commander” concept, which holds that whoever undertakes jihad must follow a commander who fulfills the criteria of religious and political leadership and has raised the banner of jihad.
. . .
Right now you are infidels. After this, you will become Muslims and you will have rights
from the Sirah Rasul Allah by Ibn Ishaq
[Abu Sufyan] stayed the night with me [the narrator] and I took him in to see the apostle early in the morning and when he saw him he said, “Isn’t it time that you should recognize that there is no God but Allah?”
He answered, “You are dearer to me than father and mother. How great is your clemence, honour, and kindness! By God, I thought that had there been another God with God he would have continued to help me.”
He said: “Woe to you, Abu Sufyan, isn’t it time that you recognize that I am God’s apostle?”
He answered, “As to that I still have some doubt.”
I said to him, “Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of God before you lose your head,” and he did so.
from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight People of the Scriptures until They give the Jizyah
Allah said, “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” Therefore when the People of the Scripture disbelieved in Muhammad, they had no beneficial faith in any Messenger or what the Messengers brought. Rather they followed their religions because this conformed with their ideas, lusts, and the ways of their forefathers, not because they are Allah’s laws and religion. Had they been true believers in their religions, that faith would have directed them to believe in Muhammad because all Prophets gave the good news of Muhammad’s advent and commanded them to obey and follow him. Yet when he was sent, they disbelieved in him, even though he is the mightiest of all Messengers. Therefore, they do not follow the religion or earlier Prophets because these religions came from Allah, but because these suit their desires and lusts. Therefore, their claimed faith in an earlier Prophet will not benefit them because they disbelieved in the master, the mightiest, the last and most perfect of all Prophets. Hence Allah’s statement, “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture.”*This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah’s region in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims’ control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. *The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that was a year of drought and intense hear. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.
from Tafsir Ibn Kathir, The Order to fight until there is no more Fitnah
*Allah then commanded fighting the disbelievers when He said: *
(…until there is no more Fitnah) meaning, Shirk. This is the opinion of Ibn
Abbas, Abu Al-Aliyah, Mujahid, Al-Hasan, Qatadah, Ar-Rabi`, Muqatil bin Hayyan, As-Suddi and Zayd bin Aslam. *
Allah’s statement: *
(…and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone).) means,
**So that the religion of Allah becomes dominant above all other religions.’** It is reported in the Two Sahihs that Abu Musa Al-Ashari said: “The Prophet was asked, `O Allah’s Messenger! A man fights out of bravery, and another fights to show off, which of them fights in the cause of Allah’ The Prophet said: *
(He who fights so that Allah’s Word is superior, then he fights in Allah’s cause.) In addition, it is reported in the Two Sahihs:
* (I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight the people until they proclaim, `None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’. Whoever said it, then he will save his life and property from me, except for cases of the law, and their account will be with Allah.)*
from Kitab al-Kharaj by Abu Yusf
It seems that the most satisfactory suggestion we have heard in this connection is that there is no objection to the use of any kind of arms against the polytheists, smothering and burning their homes, cutting down their trees and date groves, and using catapults, without, however, deliberately attacking women, children, or elderly people; that one can yet pursue those that run away, finish off the wounded, kill prisoners who might prove dangerous to the Muslims, but this is only applicable to those on the chin of whom a razor has passed, for the others are children who must not be executed.
As for the prisoners who are led before the imam, the latter has the choice of executing them or making them pay a ransom, as he pleases, opting for the most advantageous choice for the Muslims and the wisest for Islam. The ransom imposed upon them is not to consist either of gold, silver, or wares, but is only an exchange for Muslim captives.
For my part I say that the decision concerning prisoners is in the hands of the imam: in accordance with whatever he feels to be more to the advantage of Islam and the Muslims, he can have them executed or he can exchange them for Muslim prisoners (pp. 302-303).
Whenever the Muslims besiege an enemy stronghold, establish a treaty with the besieged who agree to surrender on certain conditions that will be decided by a delegate, and this man decides that their soldiers are to be executed and their women and children taken prisoner, this decision is lawful. This was the decision of Sa’ad b. Mu’adh in connection with the Banu Qurayza (a Jewish tribe of Arabia) (p. 311).
The decision made by the chosen arbitrator, if it does not specify the killing of the enemy fighters and the enslavement of their women and children, but establishes a poll tax, would also be lawful; if it stipulated that the vanquished were to be invited to embrace Islam, it would also be valid and they would therefore become Muslims and freemen (p. 311).
…Is it not correct that Allah has said in His Book: “Fight those … until they pay the tribute out of hand and have been humbled” (Koran 9:29), and that the Prophet invited the polytheists to embrace Islam, or, if they refused, to pay the poll tax, and that Umar b. al-Khattab, after having subdued the inhabitants of Sawad, did not spill their blood but made them tributaries? (p. 312).
If they offer to surrender and accept the mediation of a Muslim of their choice together with one of their number, this is to be refused, for it is unacceptable that a Believer collaborate with an infidel to arrive at a decision on religious matter. If by error, the ruler’s representative accepts and a verdict is proposed by both men, the imam is not to declare it binding unless it stipulates that the enemies will be tributaries or be converted to Islam. If this condition is adopted by them, then they are reproachless and if they acknowledge that they are tributaries, then they shall be accepted as such, without there being need of a verdict (pp. 314-15).
from the Hidayah, by Hanafi Shaikh Burhanuddin Ali
It is not lawful to make war upon any people who have never before been called to the faith, without previously requiring them to embrace it, because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith, and also because the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to this call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war. . . .
The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of Muslims, and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest.* It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who said in the Qur’an, “slay the infidels,” and also by a saying of the Prophet, “War is permanently established until the Day of Judgment”* (meaning the ordinance respecting war). The observance, however, in the degree above mentioned, suffices, because war is not a positive injunction, as it is in its nature murderous and destructive, and is enjoined only for the purpose of advancing the true faith or repelling evil from the servants of God; and when this end is answered by any single tribe or party of Muslims making war, the obligation is no longer binding upon the rest, in the same manner as in the prayers for the dead-(if, however, no one Muslim were to make war, the whole of the Muslim, would incur the criminality of neglecting it) – and also because if the injunction were positive, the whole of the Muslims must consequently engage in war, in which case the materials for war (such as horses, armour, and so forth) could not be procured. Thus it appears that the observance of war as aforesaid suffices, except where there is a general summons (that is, where the infidels invade a Muslim territory, and the Imam for the time being issues a general proclamation requiring all persons to go forth to fight), for in this case war becomes a positive injunction with respect to the whole of the inhabitants, whether men or women, and whether the Imam be a just or an unjust person; and if the people of that territory be unable to repulse the infidels, then war becomes a positive injunction with respect to all in that neighbourhood; and if these also do not suffice it, then comes a positive injunction with respect to the next neighbours; and in same manner with respect to all the Muslims from east to west.
The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect.
from the Durr al-Manthur of Al-Suyuti
Fight those who don’t believe in God nor in the Last Day [Unless they believe in the Prophet God bless him and grant him peace] nor hold what is forbidden that which God and His emissary have forbidden [e.g., wine] nor embrace the true faith [which is firm, and abrogates other faiths, i.e., the Islamic religion] from among [for distinguishing] those who were given the Book [i.e., the Jews and Christians] unless they give the head-tax [i.e., the annual taxes imposed on them] (/’an yadin/) humbly submissive, and obedient to Islam’s rule.
from Ibn Qudamah of the Hanbali school
Legal war (jihad) is an obligatory social duty (fard-kifaya); when one group of Muslims guarantees that it is being carried out in a satisfactory manner, the others are exempted.
The jihad becomes a strictly binding personal duty (fard-‘ain) for all Muslims who are enlisted or whose country has been [invaded] by the enemy. It is obligatory only for free men who have reached puberty, are endowed with reason and capable of fighting. Jihad is the best of the works of supererogation. …
Naval expeditions are more meritorious than campaigns on land. One must fight under every leader, whether it be a respectable man or a corrupt man. Every nation must fight the enemies that are its immediate neighbors. A full stint of service in a frontier post (ribat) is of forty days’ duration. …
No one can engage in jihad without the permission of his father and mother, if they are alive and Muslims, unless the jihad is an individual duty that strictly obliges. Only elderly women are permitted to venture into the war zone in order to replenish the water supply and to care for the wounded. No one should enlist the services of an infidel except in case of need. …
It is permitted to surprise the infidels under cover of night, to bombard them with mangonels and to attack them without declaring battle (du’a). …
The chief of state decides on the fate of the men who are taken prisoners; he can have them put to death, reduce them to slavery, free them in return for a ransom or grant them their freedom as a gift. …
The head tax can be demanded only from the People of the Book (ahl-al-kitab) and from Zoroastrians (Magus), who pledge to pay it and submit to the laws of the community. … It cannot be demanded from children who have not reached the age of puberty, from women, helpless old men, the sick, the blind, or slaves, nor from poor people who are unable to pay it. *An infidel subject to the head tax who converts to Islam is free of this obligation. *When an infidel dies, his heirs are responsible for the head tax.
from the Bidayat al-Mudjtahid of Averroes, of the Maliki fiqh
The legal qualification (hukm) of this activity and the persons obliged to take part in it
Scholars agree that the jihad is a collective not a personal obligation. Only ‘Abd Allah Ibn al-Hasan professed it to be a recommendable act.* According to the majority of scholars, the compulsory nature of the jihad is founded on [K 2:216] “Fighting is prescribed for you, though it is distasteful to you.”*That this obligation is a collective and not a personal one, i.e., that the obligation, when it can be properly carried out by a limited number of individuals, is canceled for the remaining Moslems, is founded on [K 9:112]: “It is not for the believers to march out all together, and, lastly, on the fact that the Prophet never went to battle without leaving some people behind. All this together implies that this activity is a collective obligation. The obligation to participate in the jihad applies to adult free men who have the means at their disposal to go to war and who are healthy, that is, not ill or suffering from chronic diseases. …
Scholars agree that all polytheists should be fought. This is founded on [K 8:39]: “Fight them until there is no persecution and the religion is entirely Allah’s.” …
The prerequisites for warfare
According to all scholars,* the prerequisite for warfare is that the enemy must have heard the summons to Islam. *This implies that it is not allowed to attack them before the summons has reached them. All Moslems are agreed about this because of [K 17:15]: “We have not be accustomed to punish until We have sent a messenger.” However, there is controversy about the question whether the summons should be repeated when the war is resumed. …
The maximum number of enemies against which one is obliged to stand one’s ground
The maximum number of enemies against which one is obliged to stand one’s group is twice the number [of one’s won troops]. About this, everybody agrees on account of [K 8:66]: “Now Allah hath made it lighter for you and knoweth that there is weakness among you.” …
The aims of warfare
The Moslems are agreed that the aim of warfare against the People of the Book, with the exception of those belonging to the Quraysh-tribe and Arab Christians, is twofold: either conversion to Islam, or payment of poll-tax (djizyah). This is based on *[K 9:29]: “Fight against those who do not believe in Allah nor in the last Day, and do not make forbidden what Allah and His messenger have made forbidden, and do not practice the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya off-hand, being subdued.” *Most lawyers likewise agree that poll-tax may also be collected from Zoroastrians on the strength of the words of the Prophet: “Treat them like the People of the Book.” There is, however, controversy with regard to polytheists who are not People of the Book: is it allowed to accept poll-tax from them or not? …
from the Muqaddimah of Ibn Khaldun
In the Muslim community,* the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the [Muslim] mission and [the obligation to] convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.* Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united [in Islam], so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them [i.e. religion and politics] at the same time. The other religious groups did not have a universal mission, and the holy war was not a religious duty for them, save only for purposes of defense. …* Islam is under obligation to gain power over other nations.* …
Thereafter, there were dissensions among the Christians with regard to their religion and to Christology. … We do not think that we should blacken the pages of this book with discussion of their dogmas of unbelief. In general, they are well known. All of them are unbelief. This is clearly stated in the noble Qur’an. [To] discuss or argue those things with them is not up to us. It is [for them to choose between] conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax, or death.
from the Risala, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh
Jihad is an obligation which can be taken on by some of the people on behalf of others.**
**[The Malikis prefer that each group be called upon to abandon their disbelief and be called to the shahada whose contents are not prescribed. He calls to the general message of the Prophet for three days in succession unless they attack first. Then the call is not recommended. Indeed, it becomes obligatory to fight them.]
They can either accept Islam or pay the jizya (tax on non-Muslims); if not they are to be fought.
Jizya is only acceptable in places where they are subject to our law. If they are a long way from our jurisdiction jizya can only be accepted from them if they move to our territory. If they do not do this they are to be fought.
o9.0 (O: Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. o9.1 Jihad is a communal obligation (def: c3.2). When enough people perform it to successfully accomplish it, it is no longer obligatory upon others. o9.8 The caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians [kafirs] (N: provided he has first invited them to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya, def: o11.4) – which is the significance of their paying it, not the money itself-while remaining in their ancestral regions) (O: and the war continues) until they become Muslim or else pay the non-Muslim poll tax (O: in accordance with the word of Allah Most High. (A: though if there is no caliph (def: o25), no permission is required).
from the Treatise on the Foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence by Majjid Khadduri
Shafi’i said: These communications mean that the jihad, and rising up in arms in particular, is obligatory for all able-bodied [believers], exempting no one, just as prayer, pilgrimage and [payment of] alms are performed, and no person is permitted to perform the duty for another, since performance by one will not fulfil the duty for another. They may also mean that the duty of [jihad] is a collective (kifaya) duty different from that of prayer: *Those who perform it in the war against the polytheists will fulfill their duty and reciever the supererogatory merit, thereby preventing those who stayed behind from falling into error. *But God has not put the two [categories of men] on equal footing, for He said:
Such believers who sit at home – unless they have an injury – are not the equals of those who fight in the path of God with their possessions and their selves. God has given precedence to those who fight with their possessions and their selves over those who sit at home. Hod has promised the best of things to both, and He has preferred those who fight over those who fit at home by [granting them] a might reward. [Q. 4:97]
. . .
So far as I have been informed, the Muslims have continued to act as I have stated, from the time of the Prophet to the present. Only a few men must know the law, attend the funeral service, perform the jihad and respond to greeting, while others are exempt. So those who know the law, perform the jihad, attend the funeral service, and respond to a greeting will be rewarded, while others do not fall into error since a sufficient number fulfill the [collective] duty.
from The Laws of Islamic Governance by Al-Mawardi
This section deals with the direction of war. The mushrikum of Dar al-Harb are of two types:
First, those whom the call of Islam has reached, but they have refused it and have taken up arms. The amir of the army has the option of fighting them in one of two ways, that is in accordance with what he judges to be in the best of interests of the Muslims and most harmful to the mushrikun: the first, to harry them from their houses and to inflict damage on them day and night, by fighting and burning, or else to declare war and combat them in ranks;
Second, those whom the invitation to Islam has not reached, although such persons are few nowadays since Allah has made manifest the call of his Messenger – unless there are people to the east and extreme east, or to the west, of whom we have no knowledge, beyond the Turks and Romans we are fighting; it is forbidden to initiate an attack on the mushrikun while they are unawares or at night, that is, *it is forbidden to kill them, use fire against them or begin an attack before explaining the invitation to Islam to them, informing them of the miracles of the Prophet and making plain the proofs so as to encourage acceptance on their part; if they still refuse to accept after this, war is waged against them and they are treated as those whom the call has reached. *Allah, may He be exalted, says, “Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and kindly admonition and converse with them by what better in argument” (Qur’an 16:125) – which means …
If the amir initiates the attack against them before calling tem to Islam or warning them by means of cogent proofs, and kills them by surprise or at night, blood money must be paid; according to the most correct judgment of the Shafi’is, it is equal to the blood money paid to Muslims, although according to others it is equal to the blood money paid to the kuffar, because of the difference of their beliefs. Abu Hanifah, however, says that no blood money is liable for killing them and their blood is shed with impunity.
A Muslim may put to death any mushrik combatant he seizes, whether or not he is involved in the fighting. There is a difference of opinion regarding the killing of old persons and monks inhabiting cells and monasteries. …
It is not permitted to kill women and children in battle, nor elsewhere, as long as they are not fighting because of the prohibition of the Messenger of ALlah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, forbade the killing of those employed as servants and mamlouks, that is young slaves. If women and children fight, then they are fought and killed, but only face to face, not from behind while fleeing. If they use their women and children as shields in battle, then one must avoid killing them and aim only at killing the men; if, however, it is impossible to kill them except by killing the women and children, then it is permitted. …
Moreover as continual perseverence in fighting is among the duties of jihad, it is binding until one of four things occur:
First, they (the enemy) become Muslims, in which case they receive the same rights as us, become responsible for the same obligations as us and they are allowed to retain any land and property they possess. The Messenger of Allah, may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said, “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say, ‘No god but Allah.’ If they say thing, then their blood and their property are safe from me – except when there exists another legitimate reason.” Their country becomes part of the Territory of Islam when they become Muslims during the battle – be they small or great in number – any land or wealth belonging to them in the battle-zone remains theirs. If the amir conquers the battle zone he cannot take the wealth of those who have accepted Islam. …
Their Islam also entails Islam for any minors amongst their children and any still in the womb. Abu Hanifah, however, says that if a kafir becomes a Muslim in the Territory of Islam, it does not entail Islam for his children who are still minors, whereas if he becomes a Muslim in Dar al-Harb, it entails Islam for his children who are minors, but not for the foetus, for his wife and the foetus are treated as fay.
from Ziauddin Barani’s Fatawa-i Jahandari
The majority of religious scholars and wise men of early (Islamic) as well as later time* have been sure that if Muslim kings strive with all their might and power* and the power of all their supporters on this path, the following objects will be attained: – the true Faith will gain a proper ascendancy over the false creeds; the True Word will be honored; the traditions of infidelity and polytheism will be weakened; Musalmans will be favored and honored; infidels and men of bad faith will be faced with destitution and disgrace; the orders of the unlawful fate and the opposed creeds will be erased; the laws of the shari’at will be enforced on the seventy-two communities; and the enemies of God and the Prophet will be condemned, banished, repudiated, and terrorized.
from Ahmed Sirhindi, excerpted from Muslim Revivalist Movements in Northern India in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries
Shariat can be fostered through the sword.
Kufr and Islam are opposed to each other. The progress of one is possible only at the expense of the other and co-existences between these two contradictory faiths in unthinkable.
The honor of Islam lies in insulting kufr and kafirs. One who respects kafirs, dishonors the Muslims. *To respect them does not merely mean honouring them and assigning them a seat of honor in any assembly, but it also implies keeping company with them or showing considerations to them. They should be kept at an arm’s length like dogs. … If some worldly business cannot be performed without them, in that case only a minimum of contact should be established with them but without taking them into confidence. *The highest Islamic sentiment asserts that it is better to forego that worldly business and that no relationship should be established with the kafirs.
The real purpose in levying jizya on them is to humiliate them to such an extent that, on account of fear of jizya, they may not be able to dress well and to live in grandeur. They should constantly remain terrified and trembling. It is intended to hold them under contempt and to uphold the honor and might of Islam.
*The document advises captors they can have sex immediately with virgins, and even pre-pubescent girls if “fit for intercourse,” reads the institute’s translation. Fighters can have sex with non-virgins, although the “uterus must be purified.” *
see Bukhari, 1:2:29, 1:8:367, 1:8:439-440, 2:14:68, 2:24:542-543, 2:25:580, 3:34:307, 3:34:312, 3:34:351, 3:34:432, 3:36:481, 3:36:483, 3:41:588, 3:41:598, 3:43:636, 3:43:648, 3:44:671, 3:46:711, 3:46:718, 3:46:723-724, 3:46:730, 3:47:765, 3:49:860, 3:50:885, 4:53:344, 4:53:373, 5:59:447, 5:59:459, 5:59:512, 5:59:541, 6:60:274, 6:60:281, 6:60:435, 6:60:466, 7:62:119, 7:62:132, 7:62:135-137, 7:64:274, 7:65:344, 7:65:346, 8:73:182, 8:73:221, 8:73:229, 8:77:600, 8:79:707, 9:83:41-45, 9:85:80, 9:89:296, 9:91:368, 9:93:506
Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Forbidding Women Already Married, Except for Female Slaves
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married, except those whom your right hands possess, except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, “We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed, Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.” This is the wording collected by At-Tirmidhi An-Nasa’i, Ibn Jarir and Muslim in his Sahih.
from Tafsir al-Jalalayn
And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]…
from Tafsir Ibn Abbas
And all married women (are forbidden unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess of captives, even if they have husbands in the Abode of War, after ascertaining that they are not pregnant, by waiting for the lapse of one period of menstruation….
from al-Tabari, Vol. 8, p. 116
So Muhammad began seizing their herds and their property bit by bit. He conquered home by home. The Messenger took some people captive, including Safiyah and her two cousins. The Prophet chose Safiyah for himself.
from Tafsir al-Wahidi
And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess… [4:24]. Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman al-Bunani informed us through Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who said: “We had captured female prisoners of war on the day of Awtas and because they were already married we disliked having any physical relationship with them. Then we asked the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, about them. And the verse, And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess, was then revealed, as a result of which* we consider it lawful to have a physical relationship with them”. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Harith informed us through ‘Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja‘far through Abu Yahya through Sahl ibn ‘Uthman through ‘Abd al-Rahim through Ash‘ath ibn Sawwar through ‘Uthman al-Batti through Abu’l-Khalil through Abu Sa‘id who said: “When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, captured the people of Awtas as prisoners of war we said: ‘O Prophet of Allah! How can we possibly have physical relationships with women whose lineage and husband we know very well?’ And so this verse was revealed: And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess”. Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Farisi informed us through Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Amrawayh through Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sufyan through Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj through ‘Ubayd Allah ibn ‘Umar al-Qawariri through Yazid ibn Zuray‘through Sa‘id ibn Abi ‘Arubah through Qatadah through Abu Salih Abu Khalil through Abu ‘Alqamah al-Hashimi through Abu Sa‘id al-Khudri who reported that on the day of Hunayn the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, sent an army to Awtas. This army met the enemy in a battle, defeated them and captured many female prisoners from them. But some of the Companions of the Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, were uncomfortable about having physical relations with these prisoners because they had husbands who were idolaters, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed about this: And *all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.
from the Hidaya by Burhan al-Din al-Marghinani
But not if she be refractory.—If a wife be disobedient or refractory and go abroad without her husband’s consent, she is not entitled to any support from him, until she return and make submission, because the rejection of the matrimonial restraint in this instance originates with her; but when she returns home, she is then subject to it, for which reason she again becomes entitled to her support as before. It is otherwise where a woman, residing in the house of her husband, refuses to admit him to the conjugal embrace, as she is entitled to maintenance, notwithstanding her opposition, because* being then in his power, he may, if he please, enjoy her by force.*
from Islam Q&A
Slaves (men and women) may be taken in the wars that take place between Muslims and kaafirs, not in wars that are fought amongst the Muslims at times of tribulation.
Islam limited the sources of slaves which existed before the mission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) to just one source, namely slavery resulting from capturing prisoners from among the kuffaar, including women and children.
Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: The reason why a person may be taken as a slave is his being a kaafir and waging war against Allaah and His Messenger. If Allaah enables the Muslims who are striving and sacrificing their lives and their wealth and all that Allaah has given them to make the word of Allaah supreme over the kaafirs, then He allows them to enslave the kuffaar when they capture them, unless the ruler chooses to free them or to ransom them, if that serves the interests of the Muslims.
from Islam Q&A
The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both.
from Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Tafhim al-Qur’an
That is, those women who become prisoners of war, while their unbelieving husbands are left behind in the War Zone, are not unlawful because their marriage ties are broken by the fact that they have come from the War Zone into the Islamic Zone. It is lawful to marry such women, and it is also lawful for those, in whose possession they are, to have sexual relations with them. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to whether such a woman is lawful, if her husband is also taken a prisoner along with her. Imam Abu Hanifah and those of his way of thinking are of the opinion that the marriage tie of such a pair would remain intact but Imam Malik and Shafi ‘i, are of the opinion that it would also break.
from the “Zad al-Ma’ad” of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya
“These are the names of Muhammad’s male slaves: Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah, ‘Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi, Mad’am, Karkara, Abu Rafi’, Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu ‘Ayb, Abu Muwayhiba, Zayd Ibn Haritha, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship’).”
. . .
Muhammad’s Maid Slaves “are Salma Um Rafi’, Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib, Maymuna daughter of Sa’d, Khadra, Radwa, Razina, Um Damira, Rayhana, Mary the Coptic, in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war.”
. . .
“Mohammed had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased more slaves than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He once sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more than he sold. He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out.”
10. NO MUSIC
ISIS has banned smoking and music, imposed the full-face veil and closed all shops before and during prayer times.
see Abu Dawud, 14:2548
r40.1 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) *As for the condemnation of musical instruments, flutes, strings, and the like *by the Truthful and Trustworthy (Allah bless him and give him peace), who
“does not speak from personal caprice: it is nothing besides a revelation inspired” (Koran 53:3-4),
let those who refuse to obey him beware lest calamity strike them, or a painful torment. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:
(1) “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance.”
(2) “On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.”
(3) “Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.”
(4) “This Community will experience the swallowing up of some people by the earth, metamorphosis of some into animals, and being rained upon with stones.” Someone asked, “When will this be, O Messenger of Allah?” and he said, “When songstresses and musical instruments appear and wine is held to be lawful.”
(5) “There will be peoples of my Community who will hold fornication, silk, wine, and musical instruments to be lawful ….”
All of this is explicit and compelling textual evidence that musical instruments of all types are unlawful (Kaff al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.269-70).
r40.2 (Nawawi:) It is unlawful to use musical instruments—such as those which drinkers are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals, and flute—or to listen to them. It is permissible to play the tambourine at weddings, circumcisions, and other times, even if it has bells on its sides. Beating the kuba, a long drum with a narrow middle, is unlawful (Mughni al-muhtaj ila ma’rifa ma’ani alfaz al-Minhaj (y73), 4.429-30).
SINGING UNACCOMPANIED BY MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS
r40.3 (Ibn Hajar Haytami:) As for listening to singing that is not accompanied by instruments, one should know that singing or listening to singing is offensive except under the circumstances to be mentioned in what follows. Some scholars hold that singing is sunna at weddings and the like, and of our Imams, Ghazali and ‘Izz ibn ‘Abd al-Salam say that it is sunna if it moves one to a noble state of mind that makes one remember the hereafter. It is clear from this that all poetry which encourages good deeds, wisdom, noble qualities, abstinence from this-worldly things, or similar pious traits such as urging one to obey Allah, follow the sunna, or shun disobedience, is sunna to write, sing, or listen to, as more than one of our Imams have stated is obvious, since using a means to do good is itself doing good (Kaff al-ra’a’ ‘an muharramat al-lahw wa al-sama’ (y49), 2.273).
from the Risala, A Treatise on Maliki Fiqh
40.27. Things one should not listen to
It is not lawful for you to deliberately listen to all of a falsehood nor to take pleasure in listening to the words of a woman who is not lawful for you nor* to listen to musicians and singers.*
[ Falsehood is like backbiting or action like listening to musical instruments and their sound.
[Hash: According to Ibn ‘Umar, listening to it is not haram.]
It is not lawful for you enjoy the speech of a woman with whom you cannot have intercourse, and so it would be permitted to enjoy the words of a wife or slavegirl. It is not permitted to enjoy the voice of a beardless youth. It is not lawful to listen to things like lutes and singing.]
((Allah) said: “Go, and whosoever of them follows you, surely, Hell will be the recompense of you (all)) meaning, for your deeds.
(an ample recompense.) Mujahid said, “Sufficient recompense.” Qatadah said, “It will be abundant for you and will not be decreased for you.”
(And fool them gradually those whom you can among them with your voice,) [Qur’an 17:64] It was said that this refers to singing. Mujahid said, “With idle entertainment and singing,” meaning, influence them with that.
. . .
When Allah mentions the blessed — who are those who are guided by the Book of Allah and benefit from hearing it, as He says:
(Allah has sent down the Best Statement, a Book, its parts resembling each other (and) oft-repeated. The skins of those who fear their Lord shiver from it. Then their skin and their heart soften to the remembrance of Allah) (39:23). He connect that with mention of the doomed, those who turn away from the Qur’an and do not benefit from hearing the Words of Allah. Instead, they turn to listening to flutes and singing accompanied by musical instruments. As Ibn Mas`ud commented about the Ayah:
(And of mankind is he who purchases Lahu Al-Hadith to mislead (men) from the path of Allah) [Qur’an 31:6], he said, “This — by Allah — refers to singing.”
(And of mankind is he who purchases Lahw Al-Hadith to mislead (men) from the path of Allah without knowledge,) Qatadah said: “By Allah, he may not spend money on it, but his purchasing it means he likes it, and the more misguided he is, the more he likes it and the more he prefers falsehood to the truth and harmful things over beneficial things.” It was said that what is meant by the words
(purchases idle talks) is buying singing servant girls. Ibn Jarir said that it means all speech that hinders people from seeing the signs of Allah and following His path.
from Tafsir Ibn Abbas
(And excite any of them) make slip any of them (whom thou canst with your voice) with your call; and it is also said that this means: with your wind instruments, singing and all other abominable ways, (and urge) and gather; and it is also said this means: seek against them the help of (your horse) the horses of idolaters (and foot) the foot soldiers of the idolaters (against them, and be a partner in their wealth) unlawful wealth (and children) illegitimate children, (and promise them) that there is no Paradise or hell. (Satan promiseth them only to deceive) he promise them nothing except falsehood.
from Tafsir al-Wahidi
(And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse…) [31:6]. Al-Kalbi and Muqatil said: “This verse was revealed about al-Nadr ibn al-Harith. He used to travel to Persia for trade. He bought the events of non-Arabs and related them to the Quraysh, saying: ‘Muhammad relates to you the events of ‘Ad and Thamud, and I relate to you the events of Rustum and Isfindiyar and the Chosroes’. They found his tales more entertaining and they shunned listening to the Qur’an, and so this verse was revealed”. Mujahid said: “This verse was revealed about the buying of slave-girls and songstresses”. Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn al-Fadl ibn Muhammad ibn Ishaq ibn Khuzaymah> his grandfather> ‘Ali ibn Hujr> Mishma‘ill ibn Milhan al-Ta’i> Muttarih ibn Yazid> ‘Ubayd Allah ibn Zahr> ‘Ali ibn Yazid> al-Qasim> Abu Umamah who reported that the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, said: “It is forbidden to teach songstresses [to sing] or to sell songstresses, and the price gotten from selling them is unlawful. It is about the like of this that this verse was revealed (And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah’s way without knowledge…) up to the end of the verse. No man raises his voice to sing except that Allah, exalted is He, sends him two devils, one on each side, who will keep banging with their feet until it is him who keeps quiet”. Thuwayr ibn Abi Fakhitah reported from his father that Ibn ‘Abbas said: “This verse was revealed about a man who bought a slave-girl who sang to him day and night”.
from Tafsir al-Qurtubi, Vol. 14, pp. 51-52
*The companions unanimously agreed upon the prohibition of music and song *but allowed particular exceptions specified by the authentic sunnah. many authentic narrations (aathaar) traced to the various sahaabah bear witness to this. Also, the four Khalifas, the fuqahaa among the saahabah such as Ibin Abaas, Ibin Umar, and Jaabir bin Abdullah as well as the general body of saahabah (may Allah be pleased with them all).
from Islam Q&A
Perhaps – for fair-minded and objective readers – this summary will make it clear that the view that music is permissible has no firm basis. There are no two views on this matter. So we must advise in the best manner, and then take it step by step and denounce music, if we are able to do so. We should not be deceived by the fame of a man in our own times in which the people who are truly committed to Islam have become strangers. The one who says that singing and musical instruments are permitted is simply supporting the whims of people nowadays, as if the masses were issuing fatwas and he is simply signing them! If a matter arises, they will look at the views of fuqahaa’ on this matter, then they will take the easiest view, as they claim. Then they will look for evidence, or just specious arguments which are worth no more than a lump of dead meat. How often have these people approved things in the name of sharee’ah which in fact have nothing to do with Islam!
from Sunni Path
In the light of the above evidences from the Qur’an, sayings of our beloved Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace) and texts of the various Fuqaha, the following is the decisive ruling with regards to music:
Musical instruments that are solely designed for entertainment are unlawful, with or without singing. However, to play the tambourine (daf) at weddings (and other occasions according to some fuqaha) will be permissible.
As far as the songs are concerned, if they consist of anything that is unlawful or they prevent one from the obligatory duties, then they will be unlawful. However, if they are free from the abovementioned things (and they are not accompanied by instruments), then it will be permissible to sing them.