Answering Islam - A Christian-Muslim dialog

A Faithful Muslim Who Proved That He Wasn’t Treacherous

A Look At Nidal Malik Hasan's Actions In Light Of Islamic Teachings Pt. 1

Sam Shamoun

The recent Fort Hood massacre has gotten the attention of the media (and rightly so). It has once again brought to the forefront the issue of whether the actions of Muslims such as Major Nidal Malik Hasan’s are motivated by the teachings of Islam or are such atrocities at odds with what Islam says concerning the treatment of non-Muslims.

Hasan himself thought that his actions were justified by the teachings of Islam and even gave a presentation to senior Army doctors on June 2007 where he demonstrated that Muslims were expressly forbidden from helping and befriending non-Muslims (*; *). In his presentation Nidal Hasan mentioned the problems the military could encounter from Muslims conflicted about fighting wars in Muslim countries. As his own slides show Hasan also believed and was convinced that Muslims were commanded to attack and subjugate the non-Muslims if and when they had the ability to do so.

There were Muslims who actually praised what Nidal Malik Hasan did and even encouraged other fellow believers to carry out similar attacks against the infidel armies who plan on “invading” Muslim lands in order to spread their “mischief ”:

However, not all Muslims shared these sentiments. Certain Muslim “scholars” and dawagandists claim that Nidal Hasan violated the teachings of Islam by breaking the covenant that he made with the “infidels”. These propagandists argue that Islam condemns the violation of oaths and commands Muslims to honor their treaties and contracts (*; *).(1)

In this article we are going to examine the teachings of Islam to see whether the actions of Major Hasan were in direct violation of what the Quran and Muhammad taught, or do the so-called authentic Islamic sources condone such murderous and treacherous acts.

The Islamic Prohibition on Befriending and Aiding Non-Muslims

In the first place, Major Hasan wasn’t supposed to be in the army of the “infidel” since aiding and befriending the disbelievers,” especially Jews and Christians, is a direct violation of the Quran:

O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends (auliya). They are friends (auliya) one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk. S. 5:51 Pickthall

Muhammad is reported to have told the Muslims that they should only associate with fellow believers and warned that a man eventually ends up following the religion of his friend:

Narrated AbuSa'id al-Khudri:

The Prophet said: Associate only with a believer, and let only a God-fearing man eat your meals. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4814)

Narrated AbuHurayrah:

The Prophet said: A man follows the religion of his friend; so each one should consider whom he makes his friend. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 41, Number 4815)

According to the Quran the only time a Muslim can befriend a disbeliever is if s/he lives in a situation in which the unbelievers outnumber them and/or the Muslims do not have the ability to subjugate them:

Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends in preference to believers. Whoso doeth that hath no connection with Allah unless (it be) that ye but guard yourselves against them, taking (as it were) security. Allah biddeth you beware (only) of Himself. Unto Allah is the journeying. S. 3:28 Pickthall

Here is how noted Muslim scholar and expositor Ibn Kathir explained this passage:

The Prohibition of Supporting the Disbelievers

Allah prohibited His believing servants from becoming supporters of the disbelievers, or to take them as comrades with whom they develop friendships, rather than the believers. Allah warned against such behavior when He said…

(And whoever does that, will never be helped by Allah in any way) meaning, whoever commits this act that Allah has prohibited, then Allah will discard him. Similarly, Allah said…

(O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies as friends, showing affection towards them), until…

(And whosoever of you does that, then indeed he has gone astray from the straight path.) [60:1]. Allah said…

(O you who believe! Take not for friends disbelievers instead of believers. Do you wish to offer Allah a manifest proof against yourselves) [4:144], and…

(O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends, they are but friends of each other. And whoever befriends them, then surely, he is one of them.) [5:51].

Allah said, after mentioning the fact that the faithful believers gave their support to the faithful believers among the Muhajirin, Ansar and Bedouins…

(And those who disbelieve are allies of one another, (and) if you do not behave the same, there will be Fitnah and oppression on the earth, and a great mischief and corruption.) [8:73].

Allah said next…

(unless you indeed fear a danger from them) meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers OUTWARDLY, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people ALTHOUGH OUR HEARTS CURSE THEM.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The TUQYAH is allowed until the Day of Resurrection... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir; underline and capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir wasn’t alone here, nor is his interpretation simply an outdated medieval position. Here is what the Salafi scholars at say:

In the Quraan, it says that we can not take the Kuffaar as awliyaa, but what does that mean? I mean, to what degree? Can we do business with them still? If I'm at school, can we play basketball with them? Can we talk to them about basketball and stuff? Can we hang out with them as long as they keep their beliefs to themselves? The reason I ask is because someone I know does hang out with them in this way and it doesn't affect his beliefs, but I still tell him, "Why don't you hang out with the muslims instead?" He says that most or many of the Muslims drink and take drugs where they hang out and they have girlfriends and he's afraid that the sins of the Muslims will lure him, yet he's sure that the Kufr of the Kaafirs will not lure him because that's something that isn't attractive to him. So is hanging out with them, playing sports with them, and talking with them about sports considered as "taking them as awliyaa instead of the believers" keeping in mind that he is doing that for his own eemaan?

Praise be to Allaah.


Allaah has forbidden the believers to take the kaafireen (disbelievers) as friends, and He has issued a stern warning against doing that.

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as Awliyaa’ (friends, protectors, helpers), they are but Awliyaa’ of each other. And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’), then surely, he is one of them. Verily, Allaah guides not those people who are the Zaalimoon (polytheists and wrongdoers and unjust)”

[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

Shaykh al-Shanqeeti (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

In this verse Allaah tells us that whoever takes the Jews and Christians as friends is one of them because of his taking them as friends. Elsewhere Allaah states that taking them as friends incurs the wrath of Allaah and His eternal punishment, and that if the one who takes them as friends was a true believer he would not have taken them as friends. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“You see many of them taking the disbelievers as their Awliyaa’ (protectors and helpers). Evil indeed is that which their ownselves have sent forward before them; for that (reason) Allaah’s Wrath fell upon them, and in torment they will abide.

81. And had they believed in Allaah, and in the Prophet (Muhammad) and in what has been revealed to him, never would they have taken them (the disbelievers) as Awliyaa’ (protectors and helpers); but many of them are the Faasiqoon (rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)”

[al-Maa’idah 5:80-81]

Elsewhere Allaah forbids taking them as friends and explains the reason for that, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not as friends the people who incurred the Wrath of Allaah (i.e. the Jews). Surely, they have despaired of (receiving any good in) the Hereafter, just as the disbelievers have despaired of those (buried) in graves (that they will not be resurrected on the Day of Resurrection)”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:13]

In another verse Allaah explains that this is so long as they are not taken as friends because of fear or taqiyah (i.e., being friendly with them in order to avoid harm); if that is the case then the one who does that is excused. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Let not the believers take the disbelievers as Awliyaa’ (supporters, helpers) instead of the believers, and whoever does that, will never be helped by Allaah in any way, except if you indeed fear a danger from them”

[Aal ‘Imraan 3:28]

This verse explains all the verses quoted above which forbid taking the kaafirs as friends in general terms. What that refers to is in cases where one has a choice, but in cases of fear and TAQIYAH it is permissible to make friends with them, as much as is essential to protect oneself against their evil. That is subject to the condition that one's faith should not be affected by that friendship and the one who is behaves in that manner out of necessity is not one who behaves in that manner out of choice.

It may be understood from the apparent meaning of these verses that the one who deliberately takes the kuffaar as friends by choice and because he likes them, is one of them. End quote.

Adwa’ al-Bayaan, 2/98,99

One of the forms of making friends with the kaafirs which is forbidden is taking them as friends and companions, mixing with them and eating and playing with them.

In the answer to question no. 10342 we have quoted Shaykh Ibn Baaz as saying:

Eating with a kaafir is not haraam if it is necessary to do so, or if that serves some shar’i interest. But they should not be taken as friends, so you should not eat with them for no shar’i reason or for no shar’i purpose. You should not sit and chat with them and laugh with them. But if there is a reason to do so, such as eating with a guest, or to invite them to Islam or to guide them to the truth, or for some other shar’i reason, then it is OK.

The fact that the food of the People of the Book is halaal for us does not mean that we may take them as friends and companions. It does not mean that we may eat and drink with them for no reason and for no shar’i purpose.

Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-'Uthaymeen was asked about the ruling on mixing with the kuffaar and treating them kindly hoping that they will become Muslim. He replied:

Undoubtedly the Muslim is obliged to HATE the enemies of Allaah and to disavow them, because this is the way of the Messengers and their followers. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Indeed there has been an excellent example for you in Ibraaheem (Abraham) and those with him, when they said to their people: ‘Verily, we are free from you and whatever you worship besides Allaah, we have rejected you, and there has started between us and you, hostility and hatred for ever until you believe in Allaah Alone’”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:4]

“You (O Muhammad) will not find any people who believe in Allaah and the Last Day, making friendship with those who oppose Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad), even though they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or their kindred (people). For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with Rooh (proofs, light and true guidance) from Himself”

[al-Mujaadilah 58:22]

Based on this, it is not permissible for a Muslim to feel any love in his heart towards the enemies of Allaah who are in fact his enemies too. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists) as friends, showing affection towards them, while they have disbelieved in what has come to you of the truth”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:1]

But if a Muslim treats them with KINDNESS and gentleness in the hope that they will become Muslim and will believe, there is nothing wrong with that, because it comes under the heading of opening their hearts to Islam. But if he despairs of them becoming Muslim, then he should treat them accordingly. This is something that is discussed in detail by the scholars, especially in the book Ahkaam Ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn al-Qayyim.

Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen, 3, question no. 389. (Question #59879: What is meant by taking the kuffar as friends? Ruling on mixing with the kuffar; bold and capital emphasis ours)

And here is the counsel they gave to a Muslim enlisted in an “infidel” army:

I work in the army of a non-Muslim state, and there are wars between them and the Muslims. What is the ruling if they send me with a division of this army to wage war against the Muslims? As a Muslim, my feelings are that I never want to fight against Muslims in any war.
What should I do?
What is the ruling if I go…?

Praise be to Allaah.

If you are sent to wage war against the Muslims, then it is not permissible for you to take part at all. Helping the kaafirs against the Muslims is a form of major kufr which puts one beyond the pale of Islam. Allaah says concerning one who supports the mushrikeen (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if any amongst you takes them (as Awliyaa’, i.e., friends), then surely, he is one of them”[al-Maa’idah 5:51]

With regard to how you may get out of this situation, and what excuse you can give to get out of this dilemma if it happens, we ask Allaah to help you, and we suggest that you consult some Muslims who have relevant knowledge or experience.

We want to emphasize to you the necessity of finding other employment and of leaving service in the army of the kaafirs, because that implies helping them, strengthening them and increasing the numbers of their fighters and supporters – unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da’wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs. We ask Allaah to keep you safe from temptation and to give you a good end in this world and in the Hereafter. (Fatwa No. 14004: It is not permissible for a Muslim to fight with kaafirs against the Muslims at all; bold and underline emphasis ours)

See also their following answers to similar questions:

The Muslim scripture further forbids the unlawful killing of fellow believers:

It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e. Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allah. And Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise. And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell to abide therein, and the Wrath and the Curse of Allah are upon him, and a great punishment is prepared for him. S. 4:92-93 Hilali-Khan

And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause. And whoever is killed (intentionally with hostility and oppression and not by mistake), We have given his heir the authority [(to demand Qisas, Law of Equality in punishment or to forgive, or to take Diya (blood money)]. But let him not exceed limits in the matter of taking life (i.e. he should not kill except the killer only). Verily, he is helped (by the Islamic law). S. 17:33 Hilali-Khan

It is interesting that Nidal Hasan himself quoted these very passages in slide 12 of his presentation. Thus, Hasan knew very well that aiding the “infidel” in “attacking” Muslims in their lands was a direct violation of the teachings of Islam.

Islam on waging war and spreading mischief

The Quran threatens to punish anyone who would spread mischief and/or seek to wage war against Allah and his “messenger:”

Because of that We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land - it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind. And indeed, there came to them Our Messengers with clear proofs, evidences, and signs, even then after that many of them continued to exceed the limits (e.g. by doing oppression unjustly and exceeding beyond the limits set by Allah by committing the major sins) in the land! The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief (fasadan) in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. S. 5:32-33 Hilali-Khan

According to Muslim scholars waging “war” and spreading “mischief” encompass more than just physical fighting. It also includes such things as spreading a religion other than Islam and/or disobeying the express commands and prohibitions of Allah:

Fasad, literally 'corruption', in Qur'anic terminology, means creating disorder and corruption earth BY FOLLOWING A PATH OTHER THAN GOD’S. Islam maintains that true peace and happiness emanate ONLY THROUGH THE OBSERVANCE OF GOD’S COMMANDS and through making a conscious effort to see that His laws alone are implemented in every sphere of life. Fasad occurs when man violates God's laws and disobeys Him. Fasad may therefore be partial as well as total; partial when one disregards God's law in one aspect of life while acknowledging His sovereignty in other spheres. If a society is based on the denial of God, that society is bound to be a corrupt and exploitative society - hence full of fasad. (Glossary of Islamic Terms, compiled by Ishaq Zahid; capital emphasis ours)

Ibn Kathir explains that:

The Punishment of those Who Cause Mischief in the Land

Allah said next…

<The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land.>

'Wage war' mentioned here means, OPPOSE AND CONTRADICT, and it includes DISBELIEF, blocking roads and spreading fear in the fairways. Mischief in the land refers to various types of evil. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Volume 3, p. 161: capital emphasis ours)

He further says in reference to Q. 2:11-12 which uses the same word fasad:

Meaning of Mischief
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented…

<And when it is said to them: "Do not make mischief on the earth," they say: "We are only peacemakers.">

"They are the hypocrites. As for…

<"Do not make mischief on the earth">, that is DISBELIEF AND ACTS OF DISOBEDIENCE." Abu Ja`far said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah said that Allah's statement, ...

<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. (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) Volume 1, Parts 1 and 2 (Surat Al-Fatihah to Verse 252 of Surat Al-Baqarah), abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: January 2000], pp. 131-132; capital emphasis ours)


Types of Mischief that the Hypocrites commit
Ibn Jarir said, "The hypocrites commit mischief on earth BY DISOBEYING THEIR LORD on it and continuing in the prohibited acts. They also ABANDON WHAT ALLAH MADE OBLIGATORY AND DOUBT HIS RELIGION, even though He does not accept a deed from anyone EXCEPT WITH FAITH IN HIS RELIGION and certainty of its truth. The hypocrites also lie to the believers by saying contrary to the doubt and hesitation their hearts harbor. They give as much aid as they can, against Allah's loyal friends, and support those who deny Allah, His Books and His Messengers. This is how the hypocrites commit mischief on earth, while thinking that they are doing righteous work on earth."
The statement by Ibn Jarir is true, taking the disbelievers as friends is one of the categories of mischief on the earth... (Ibid., p. 132; capital emphasis ours)

Hence, from an Islamic perspective what Major Hasan did was noble since he sought to prevent the “enemies” of Allah from “invading” Muslim lands and spreading their “mischief.”

Islam on the Permissibility of Violating Oaths and Covenants

These propagandists further failed to inform their readers that Islam actually allows Muslims to break their agreements and vows:

Freedom from (all) obligations (is declared) from Allah and His Messenger to those of the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah), with whom you made a treaty. So travel freely (O Mushrikun - see V.2:105) for four months (as you will) throughout the land, but know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah, and Allah will disgrace the disbelievers. And a declaration from Allah and His Messenger to mankind on the greatest day (the 10th of Dhul Hijjah - the 12th month of Islamic calendar) that Allah is free from (all) obligations to the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) and so is His Messenger. So if you (Mushrikun) repent, it is better for you, but if you turn away, then know that you cannot escape (from the Punishment of) Allah. And give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful torment to those who disbelieve. Except those of the Mushrikun with whom you have a treaty, and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor have supported anyone against you. So fulfill their treaty to them to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves Al- Mattaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). Then when the Sacred Months (the 1st, 7th, 11th, and 12th months of the Islamic calendar) have passed, then kill the Mushrikun (see V.2:105) wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat), and give Zakat, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. And if anyone of the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) seeks your protection then grant him protection, so that he may hear the Word of Allah (the Qur'an), and then escort him to where he can be secure, that is because they are men who know not. How can there be a covenant with Allah and with His Messenger for the Mushrikun (polytheists, idolaters, pagans, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) except those with whom you made a covenant near Al-Masjid-al-Haram (at Makkah)? So long, as they are true to you, stand you true to them. Verily, Allah loves Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). How (can there be such a covenant with them) that when you are overpowered by them, they regard not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant with you? With (good words from) their mouths they please you, but their hearts are, averse to you, and most of them are Fasiqun (rebellious disobedient to Allah). They have purchased with the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah a little gain, and they hindered men from His Way; evil indeed is that which they used to do. With regard to a believer, they respect not the ties, either of kinship or of covenant! It is they who are the transgressors. But if they repent, perform As-Salat (Iqamat-as-Salat) and give Zakat, then they are your brethren in religion. (In this way) We explain the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) in detail for a people who know. But if they violate their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion with disapproval and criticism then fight (you) the leaders of disbelief (chiefs of Quraish - pagans of Makkah) - for surely their oaths are nothing to them - so that they may stop (evil actions). Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger, while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allah has more right that you should fear Him, if you are believers. Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people, And remove the anger of their (believers') hearts. Allah accepts the repentance of whom He wills. Allah is All-Knowing, All-Wise. S. 9:1-15 Hilali-Khan

We shall see shortly see that, contrary to the assertions of the above passage, it was Muhammad who broke his treaty with the pagans first, not the other way around. Moreover, the pagans had already surrendered and come under the subjection of Muhammad when these verses were composed, and as such they posed no serious threat to him or his followers. For more on this issue we recommend the following rebuttal.

Returning to the issue at hand, according to the Muslim scholars Q. 9:5, commonly referred to as the “sword verse,” abrogated every treaty and peace agreement that Muhammad had with the disbelievers:

This is the Ayah of the Sword...

<But if they repent and perform the Salah, and give Zakah, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.>

Abu Bakr As-Siddiq used this and other honorable Ayat as proof for fighting those who refrained from paying the Zakah. These Ayat allowed fighting people unless, and until, they embrace Islam and implement its rulings and obligations... In the two Sahihs, it is recorded that Ibn ‘Umar said that the Messenger of Allah said,

<I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay Zakah.>

This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, EVERY TREATY, AND EVERY TERM." Al-‘Awfi said that Ibn ‘Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise ever since Sura Bara’ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara’ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi’ Al-Akhir." (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged), Surat Al-A’raf to the end of Surah Yunus, abridged by a group of scholars under the supervision of Shaykh Safiur-Rahman Al-Mubarakpuri [Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh, Houston, New York, Lahore; First Edition: May 2000] Volume 4, pp. 375, 377; capital and underline emphasis ours)

The following quotes were taken from this page.

Ibn Juzayy:

(Then when the sacred months are over) i.e. the four months designated for them. Those who say that they are Shawwal, Dhu’l-Qa’da, Dhu’l-Hijja and al-Muharram, says that they are the well-known Sacred Months - with the addition of Shawwal and omission of Rajab. They are called "sacred" because the majority dominates in an Arabic phrase. Those who say that they last until Rab' ath-Thani calls them sacred because of their inviolability and because fighting in them was forbidden.

(kill the mushrikun wherever you find them) ABROGATING EVERY PEACE TREATY IN THE QUR’AN. It is said that it abrogates, "by setting them free or ransom." (47:4) It is also said that it is abrogated by it and so setting them free and ransom are permitted. (seize them) means to capture, and the one taken is the captive.

(If they make tawba) after disbelief. Then He connects belief to the prayer and zakat. That is an indication that one should fight anyone WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER AND ZAKAT as Abu Bakr as-Siddiq did. The ayat encompassed the meaning of the Prophet’s words, "I am commanded to fight people until they say, 'There is no god but Allah and establish the prayer and pay the zakat." (let them go on their way) granting them security…


This [Q. 9:5] is an Ayat of the Sword WHICH ABROGATES PARDON, TRUCE AND OVERLOOKING. (seize them) is used as evidence for the permission to take captives. (and besiege them) is permission for besieging and raiding and attacking by night. Ibn Abi Hatim reported that Abu 'Imran al-Jawfi said that ribat in the way of Allah is found in the words, "lie in wait for them on every road." (if they make tawba and establish the prayer and pay the zakat, let them go on their way) Repentance from shirk is not enough to let them go their way until they establish the prayer and pay the zakat. Ash-Shafi'i took this as a proof FOR KILLING ANYONE WHO ABANDONS THE PRAYER and fighting ANYONE WHO REFUSES TO PAY ZAKAT . Some use it as a proof that they are kafirun. (Capital and underline emphasis ours)

The Quran also informs Muslims to break their treaties with those who have proven to be treacherous:

And if thou fearest treachery from any folk, then throw back to them (their treaty) fairly. Lo! Allah loveth not the treacherous. S. 8:58

Again, what could be more treacherous than Western armies “invading” Muslim lands and aiding them in that purpose? In fact, is there anything worse from an Islamic point of view than western forces coming to Muslim lands with a purpose of establishing democratic governments based on western values as opposed to helping to set up a system which seeks to implement Shariah or the rule of Allah as “revealed” in the Quran and the sunna of his messenger? And what could be evil Islamically speaking than Muslims inviting or allowing such “infidel” armies to come and wreak “havoc” in their lands by taking over in order to set up their “infidel” forms of government?

After all, didn’t we read where the Quran warns Muslims against taking Jews and Christians as their allies (cf. Q. 5:51)? And didn’t we also see how Muslim scholars claim that it is expressly forbidden to fight alongside the “disbelievers,” especially when its against fellow Muslims? Here is another example:

Praise be to Allaah.

Taking the kaafirs as friends (muwaalaah) means supporting them and helping them in matters of kufr, SUCH AS THE MUSLIMS FIGHTING ALONGSIDE THE KUFFAAR, such as when the kaafirs launch an assault against a Muslim country and a Muslim befriends them and supports them and helps them in fighting against that country, whether that is with weapons or by supplying them with anything that will help them to fight the Muslims. This is muwaalaah, or a type of friendship THAT IS HARAM, because it means joining them and supporting them against other Muslims.

With regard to seeking their help, that depends of the purpose to be served. If that serves the Muslims’ interests, there is nothing wrong with it, on the condition that we must beware of their evil and treachery and there be no risk of them betraying us. But if that serves no interest then it is not permissible to seek their help because there is no good in them. (Fatwa No. 10421: The difference between taking the kaafirs as friends and seeking their help; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Now as far as oaths are concerned we find in the so-called sound-narratives Muhammad expressly telling his followers that they could break their word and promises if it means doing something that is better:

Narrated 'Abdur-Rahman bin Samura:
The Prophet said, "O 'Abdur-Rahman! Do not seek to be a ruler, for if you are given authority on your demand then you will be held responsible for it, but if you are given it without asking (for it), then you will be helped (by Allah) in it. If you ever take an oath to do something and later on you find that something else is better, then you should expiate your oath and do what is better." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 260)

Again, what could be better from an Islamic perspective than killing the “enemies” of Allah who were planning to “attack” Muslim lands?

Muhammad himself had no problems breaking his oaths:

O Prophet! Why do you ban (for yourself) that which Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Allah has already ordained for you (O men), the dissolution of your oaths. And Allah is your Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.) and He is the All-Knower, the All-Wise. And (remember) when the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his wives (Hafsah), so when she told it (to another i.e. 'Aishah), and Allah made it known to him, he informed part thereof and left a part. Then when he told her (Hafsah) thereof, she said: "Who told you this?" He said: "The All-Knower, the All-Aware (Allah) has told me". If you two (wives of the Prophet, namely 'Aishah and Hafsah) turn in repentance to Allah, (it will be better for you), your hearts are indeed so inclined (to oppose what the Prophet likes), but if you help one another against him (Muhammad), then verily, Allah is his Maula (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers. S. 66:1-4 Hilali-Khan

We are told that these verses refer to Muhammad making an oath to his wife Hafsah that he would not have conjugal relations with his slave girl Mariah the Copt anymore:

O Prophet! Why do you prohibit what God has made lawful for you, in terms of your Coptic handmaiden Māriya — when he lay with her in the house of Hafsa, who had been away, but who upon returning [and finding out] became upset by the fact that this had taken place in her own house and on her own bed — by saying, ‘She is unlawful for me!’, seeking, by making her unlawful [for you], to please your wives? And God is Forgiving, Merciful, having forgiven you this prohibition. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

Verily God has prescribed, He has made lawful, for you [when necessary] the absolution of your oaths, to absolve them by expiation, as mentioned in the sūrat al-Mā’ida [Q. 5:89] and the forbidding of [sexual relations with] a handmaiden counts as an oath, so did the Prophet (s) expiate? Muqātil [b. Sulaymān] said, ‘He set free a slave [in expiation] for his prohibition of Māriya’; whereas al-Hasan [al-Basrī] said, ‘He never expiated, because the Prophet (s) has been forgiven [all errors]’. And God is your Protector, your Helper, and He is the Knower, the Wise. (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)

However Allah permitted him to break his word, something which he did often whenever it suited his purposes:

Narrated Zahdam:

We were in the company of Abu Musa Al-Ash'ari and there were friendly relations between us and this tribe of Jarm. Abu Musa was presented with a dish containing chicken. Among the people there was sitting a red-faced man who did not come near the food. Abu Musa said (to him), "Come on (and eat), for I have seen Allah's Apostle eating of it (i.e. chicken)." He said, "I have seen it eating something (dirty) and since then I have disliked it, and have taken an oath that I shall not eat it." Abu Musa said, "Come on, I will tell you (or narrate to you). Once I went to Allah’s Apostle with a group of Al-Ash'ariyin, and met him while he was angry, distributing some camels of Rakat. We asked for mounts but he took an oath that he would not give us any mounts, and added, ‘I have nothing to mount you on.’ In the meantime some camels of booty were brought to Allah's Apostle and he asked twice, ‘Where are Al-Ash'ariyin?" So he gave us five white camels with big humps. We stayed for a short while (after we had covered a little distance), and then I said to my companions, ‘Allah's Apostle has forgotten his oath. By Allah, if we do not remind Allah's Apostle of his oath, we will never be successful.’ So we returned to the Prophet and said, ‘O Allah's Apostle! We asked you for mounts, but you took an oath that you would not give us any mounts; we think that you have forgotten your oath.’ He said, ‘It is Allah Who has given you mounts. By Allah, and Allah willing, if I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.’" (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 67, Number 427)

Keep in mind that the oath mentioned in Q. 66 was not a vow or oath sworn to Allah, but an oath sworn by Muhammad to his wives. Now if Muslims can even dissolve oaths to their wives, why should anyone assume they cannot dissolve oaths sworn to foreigners and infidels with the explicit backing of Islamic teaching?

Muhammad also expressly violated one of the stipulations of the treaty which he made with the Meccans:

After Al-Hudaybiyyah, Emigrant Muslim Women may not be returned to the Disbelievers

In Surat Al-Fath, we related the story of the treaty at Al-Hudaybiyyah that was conducted between the Messenger of Allah and the disbelievers of Quraysh. In that treaty, there were these words, "Everyman (in another narration, EVERY PERSON) who reverts from our side to your side, should be returned to us, even if he is a follower of your religion." This was said by `Urwah, Ad-Dahhak, `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd, Az-Zuhri, Muqatil bin Hayyan and As-Suddi.

So according to this narration, this Ayah specifies and explains the Sunnah. And this is the best case of understanding. Yet according to another view of some of the Salaf, it abrogates it.

Allah the Exalted and Most High ordered His faithful servants to test the faith of women who emigrate to them. When they are sure that they are faithful, they should not send them back to the disbelievers, for the disbelievers are not allowed for them and they are not allowed for the disbelievers. In the biography of `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad bin Jahsh in Al-Musnad Al-Kabir, we also mentioned that `Abdullah bin Abi Ahmad said, "Umm Kulthum bint `Uqbah bin Abi Mu`ayt emigrated and her brothers, `Umarah and Al-Walid, went after her. They came to Allah’s Messenger and talked to him about Umm Kulthum and asked that she be returned to them. ALLAH ABOLISHED THE PART OF THE TREATY BETWEEN THE PROPHET AND THE IDOLATORS ABOUT THE WOMEN PARTICULARLY. So He forbade returning Muslim women to the idolators and revealed the Ayah about testing them" …

<Likewise do not keep disbelieving women,>

Then `Umar bin Al-Khattab divorced two of his wives, who were idolatresses, and one of them got married to Mu`awiyah bin Abi Sufyan, while the other got married to Safwan bin Umayyah.

Ibn Thawr narrated that Ma`mar said that Az-Zuhri said, "This Ayah was revealed to Allah's Messenger while he was in the area of Al-Hudaybiyyah, after making peace. He agreed that WHOEVER COMES from the Quraysh to his side, WILL BE RETURNED TO MAKKAH. When some women came, this Ayah was revealed. Allah commanded that the dowery that was paid to these women be returned to their husbands. Allah also ordered that if some Muslim women revert to the side of the idolators, the idolators should return their dowery to their Muslim husbands ... (Tafsir Ibn Kathir (Abridged) (Surat Al-Jathiyah to the end of Surat Al-Munafiqun), Volume 9, pp. 599-600, 602; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Al-Tabari, another renowned Muslim expositor, also admitted that Muhammad broke the treaty by refusing to return the Meccan women who had defected:

… So the Messenger of God said, "Write: This is that whereon Muhammad b. ‘Abdallah has made peace with Suhayl b. ‘Amr. The two have agreed on these terms: that warfare shall be laid aside by the people for ten years, during which the people shall be safe and refrain from [attacking] each other; that, WHOEVER shall come to the Messenger of God from Quraysh WITHOUT THE PERMISSION of his guardian, [Muhammad] shall return him to them; that WHOEVER shall come to Quraysh from those who are with the Messenger of God, they shall not return him to [Muhammad] …” (The History of Al-Tabari: The Victory of Islam, translated by Michael Fishbein [State University of New York Press (SUNY), Albany, 1997], Volume VIII, p. 86)


Ibn Ishaq added in his account: Umm Kulthum bt. ‘Uqbah b. Abi Mu‘ayt emigrated to the Messenger of God during that period. Her brothers, ‘Umarah and al-Walid b. ‘Uqbah, went to the Messenger of God to ask him to return her to them ACCORDING TO THE TREATY BETWEEN HIM AND QURAYSH AT AL-HUDAYBIYAH, BUT HE DID NOT DO SO: GOD HAD REJECTED IT. (Ibid., p. 92; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

A more recent Muslim writer, the late Muhammad Asad, in his notes to Q. 60:10, confirms that women were included within the agreement between Muhammad and the pagans:

11 Under the terms of the Truce of Hudaybiyyah, concluded in the year 6 H. between the Prophet and the pagan Quraysh of Mecca, any Meccan minor or other person under guardianship who went over to the Muslims without the permission of his or HER guardian was to be returned to the Quraysh (see introductory note to surah 48). The Quraysh took this stipulation to include ALSO MARRIED WOMEN, whom they considered to be under the "guardianship" of their husbands. Accordingly, when several Meccan women embraced Islam against the will of their husbands and fled to Medina, the Quraysh demanded their forcible return to Mecca. This the Prophet refused on the grounds that married women did not fall within the category of "persons under guardianship". However, since there was always the possibility that some of these women had gone over to the Muslims not for reasons of faith but out of purely worldly considerations, the believers were enjoined to make sure of their sincerity; and so, the Prophet asked each of them: "Swear before God that thou didst not leave because of hatred of thy husband, or out of desire to go to another country, or in the hope of attaining to worldly advantages: swear before God that thou didst not leave for any reason save the love of God and His Apostle" (Tabari). Since God alone knows what is in the heart of a human being, a positive response of the woman concerned was to be regarded as the only humanly attainable - and, therefore, legally sufficient - proof of her sincerity. The fact that God alone is really aware of what is in a human being's heart is incorporated in the shar’i principle that any adult person's declaration of faith, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, makes it mandatory upon the community to accept that person - whether man or woman - as a Muslim on the basis of this declaration alone. (The Message of the Qur’an, translated and explained by Muhammad Asad, pp. 1097-1098; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

Another more recent Muslim translator, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, did as well:

Under the treaty of Hudaibiya [see Introduction to S. lxviii, paragraph 4, condition (3)], women under guardianship (INCLUDING MARRIED WOMEN), who fled from the Quraish in Makkah to the Prophet’s protection at Madinah WERE TO BE SENT BACK. But before this Ayat was issued, the Quraysh had already broken the treaty, and some instruction was necessary as to what the Madinah Muslims should do in those circumstances… (Ali, The Holy Qur’an: Translation and Commentary, p. 1534, fn. 5422 on Sura 60:10; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

And here is what Ali wrote regarding the conditions of the treaty:

4. A peaceful Treaty was therefore concluded, known as the Treaty of Hudaibiya. It stipulated: (1) that there was to be peace between the parties for ten years; (2) that any tribe or person was free to join either party or make an alliance with it; (3) that if a Quraish person from Mecca, under guardianship, should join the prophet without the guardian’s permission, he (OR SHE) should be sent back to the guardian, but in the contrary case, they should not be sent back; and (4) that the Prophet and his party were not to enter Mecca that year, but that they could enter unarmed the following year. (Ibid., introduction to Sura XLVIII (Fat-h), p. 1389; bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

In light of this Muhammad stands condemned by his own words since he is reported to have said the following:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr:

The Prophet said, "Whoever has the following four (characteristics) will be a pure hypocrite and whoever has ONE OF the following four characteristics will have one characteristic of hypocrisy unless and until he gives it up.

1. Whenever he is entrusted, he betrays.

2. Whenever he speaks, he tells a lie.

3. Whenever he makes a covenant, he proves treacherous.

4. Whenever he quarrels, he behaves in a very imprudent, evil and insulting manner." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 33)

Hence, according to the Islamic sources Muhammad was a treacherous hypocrite for breaking the covenant he had made with the pagans!

Since the Quran sets forth Muhammad as model for the believers to emulate,

Indeed in the Messenger of Allah (Muhammad) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah much. S. 33:21 Hilali-Khan

And verily, you (O Muhammad) are on an exalted standard of character. S. 68:4 Hilali-Khan

It is not surprising that Major Hasan broke the “covenant” he had with the disbelievers in order to do that which was in the best interests of Islam and Muslims.

It is now time to move on to part 2.


(1) Muslim dawagandist Bassam Zawadi writes:

Nidal Malik Hasan clearly committed treachery because:

1) He was under a covenant with the US government and military.
2) He broke that covenant without informing the other side.

It is apparent that Zawadi hasn’t bothered to study Major Hasan’s power point presentation. In that presentation which was given two years before Nidal Hasan went on his murder spree he had warned the U.S. that they suffered the risk of potential attacks if they refused to allow Muslims the right to refuse to join U.S. forces in their military campaigns against fellow Muslims.

In slide 2 Hasan writes:

  • Identify what the Koran inculcates in the minds of Muslims and the potential implications this may have for the U.S. military.
  • Describe the nature of the religious conflicts that Muslims may have with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Identify Muslim soldiers that may be having religious conflicts with the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In slide 13 Hasan gives examples of U.S. Muslim soldiers who either attacked their fellow soldiers or defected:

  • Hasan Akbar: 101st Airborne Division’s 326th Engineer Battalion– Through grenades killing/wounding many.
  • Army Capt. James Yee– charged with espionage; later acquitted.
  • Marine Cpl. Waseef Ali Hasoun; deserted in Iraq; Cited disapproval of war as a Muslim.
  • Army Sergeant Abdullah William Webster; refused to deploy to Iraq based on religious beliefs

Here is what Hasan says in slide 49:

  • God expects full loyalty. Promises heaven and threatens with Hell.
  • Muslims may be seen as moderate (compromising) but God is not.
  • “I love the Koran and being a Muslim, but I don’t want to live under Islamic rule”.
  • Fighting to establish an Islamic state to please God, even by force, is condoned by Islam.
  • Muslims [sic] Soldiers should not serve in any capacity that renders them at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly… will vary!

Nidal Hasan concludes his presentation with the following tacit warning:

Department of Defense should allow Muslim soldiers the option of being released as “Conscientious objectors” to increase troop morale AND DECREASE ADVERSE EVENTS. (Capital emphasis ours)

It is clear from this that Hasan did inform the U.S. army that any contract that he had with them would be broken since he had given them ample warning that they should not force Muslims to join them in fighting against fellow Muslims. Hasan clearly stated that this could lead to potential attacks against U.S. troops. This shows that Nidal Hasan does not meet Muslim propagandist Zawadi’s own criteria for treachery and his actions actually prove that he was being a very faithful Muslim both in warning the U.S. army and in subsequently attacking them!