Text copied Link copied

Al-Fatawa – home

﴿ فَاسْأَلُوا أَهْلَ الذِّكْرِ إِن كُنتُمْ لَا تَعْلَمُونَ ﴾

Scholar
Search mode

Is it permissible to seize the wealth and property of disbelievers?

Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : What Allah willed, some of the young men, O Shaykh, in some universities say, for example, if people are disbelievers, then it is permissible for us to take their wealth. It is permissible for us to take their car. A man gets out, parks his car to buy something, they get in his car and drive off, and they say, "These are disbelievers, and a disbeliever means a warrior, whether he is a warrior or not." Especially in Islamic lands, where those who are called tourists or others come. They say, "These people corrupt the earth and corrupt the lands," and they use these things with them. If they find an opportunity, they might kill them, or they might steal his car, or steal his money, or do anything. Are these things permissible in the Shari'ah?

The Shaykh : Absolutely not. First, these people are indeed disbelievers, and they have corrupted the earth and occupied the lands, and so on. But, unfortunately, they enter our lands with the safety of the rulers, these tyrants. And thus, these people fall into the category of those with whom treaties are made, because it is not hidden from you that, according to the jurists, disbelievers are divided into three categories: warriors, those with whom treaties are made, and protected non-Muslims. Unfortunately, there are no longer any protected non-Muslims, but rather, as that Turkish person you mentioned said, they have become citizens. Citizens, with no difference between a Muslim and a disbeliever. And this is part of twisting words to abandon holding fast to the religion and being zealous for the rulings of the religion. "Citizen"—you do not say Christian, you do not say Jew, there is no difference. And this is a Christian saying, what do they say? "Religion belongs to Allah, and the homeland belongs to everyone." "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Allahu Akbar. They are applying Christianity to Muslims with such words. The point is, there are no protected non-Muslims today, only citizens. But there are now those with whom treaties are made. Unfortunately, agreements are made between Muslim rulers and these warriors. As long as they have entered our lands with safety, it is not permissible for us to betray them, neither in their wealth, nor in their honor, nor in anything that harms them. And here comes the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
Whoever kills a person with whom a treaty is made, in his place of safety, will not smell the fragrance of Paradise, even though its fragrance can be found from a distance of one hundred miles. من قتل معاهدا في كنهه لم يرح رائحة الجنة وإن ريحها لتوجد من مسيرة مائة عام
It is not permissible to transgress. And, unfortunately, the spread of this theory among many Muslims today is due, in my view, to two calamities. The first calamity is ignorance of the rulings of the religion. The second calamity is the prevalence of materialism among Muslims, such that they no longer prohibit or permit in practice. And so, interest-based banks have multiplied among us, because their concern is gathering wealth, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said:
When you enter into the inah transaction, hold the tails of oxen, are pleased with agriculture, and give up conducting jihad (struggle in the way of Allah). Allah will make disgrace prevail over you, and will not withdraw it until you return to your original religion. إذا تبايعتم بالعينة وأخذتم أذناب البقر ورضيتم بالزرع وتركتم الجهاد في سبيل الله سلط الله عليكم ذلا لا ينزعه عنكم حتى ترجعوا إلى دينكم
Sunan Abi Dawud 3462Sahih (Al-Albani)
The disparity in the 'inah sale is widespread in some Islamic lands, and through the fatwas of some scholars. We are not speaking now about open interest, but about the 'inah sale. What is the cause of this hidden interest, let alone open interest? It is the love of this world and the hatred of death, as came in the authentic hadith. The other is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him):
The nations will be called upon you as those who eat a meal are called to its platter. They said, "O Messenger of Allah, will that be because we are few at that time?" He said, "No, you will be many at that time, but you will be like the foam of a flood. And Allah will remove the fear from the hearts of your enemies and cast weakness into your hearts." They said, "What is weakness, O Messenger of Allah?" He said, "The love of this world and the hatred of death." ستداعى عليكم الأمم كما تداعى الأكلة إلى قصعتها قالوا أومن قلة نحن يومئذ يا رسول الله قال لا أنتم يومئذ كثير ولكنكم غثاء كغثاء السيل ولينزعن الله الرهبة من صدور عدوكم وليقذفن في قلوبكم الوهن قالوا وما الوهن يا رسول الله قال حبّ الدنيا وكراهية الموت
So, the love of this world is the second cause that leads these young men to consider these disbelievers, who enter the lands of Muslims by agreement and treaty between them and the rulers, to be permissible to take. But the matter has reached something more dangerous than that: they consider the wealth of the ruling state in their country to be permissible to take. And the ruler, whatever is said about him, is one of them and among them, as the common Syrian proverb says, "The worm of the vinegar is in it." So, as long as they steal electricity and steal water and the like, they say the wealth of the state is lawful. The wealth of the state is the wealth of the people, and the wealth of so-and-so and so-and-so is not with the state; it is our wealth. So, when you steal from the state, you are not stealing from the head of state, but from the sum of the people whom this Muslim ruler rules, even if he is a Muslim geographically. And with this, it is sufficient, if Allah wills.

The questioner : I mean, are we still on this question, O Shaykh? May Allah preserve you. Does the ruling change if the ruler has reached disbelief in belief and brought these people in with a covenant and safety? Does the ruling change?

The Shaykh : It does not change, because other harms would result from that.The questioner : O Shaykh, I mean, praise be to Allah, it is clear, because other harms would result from that.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : It is not from the perspective of ... Yes.

The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.

The questioner : It is from the perspective of harms.

The Shaykh : Yes.

The questioner : Now, praise be to Allah, I heard your answer, especially regarding what is connected to tribal revenge, and what is connected now to electricity and water, and what the young men do.

The Shaykh : This is written in the book.

The questioner : Praise be to Allah. You mentioned those who accuse the great scholars of not knowing the reality of the Ummah, and that they live in some things. We take certain fatwas from them regarding what is connected to legal rulings, but regarding what is connected to the diseases of the Ummah and its rulings and its reality, and so on, we do not take this from them. Allah is the Helper.

The Shaykh: Allahu Akbar.

The questioner : How much they transgress and how much they oppress, but we ask Allah to guide us and them.

The Shaykh : O Allah, amen. May Allah reward you with good.

The questioner : May Allah bless you and reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And may He bless you, and welcome. Now, gather your things and go.
Source www.al-albany.com

The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.

Similar fatwas