What is the ruling on a Muslim killing a disbeliever in the lands of Islam, particularly in the lands of Saudi Arabia and Palestine?

The questioner : The question, O Shaykh, is based on the saying of Allah, Blessed and Exalted is He, regarding this Muslim who may be an ordinary person, and his zeal takes him to derive a ruling from the saying of Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, So, for example, he finds one mushrik (one who associates partners with Allah) on his path, understands this verse, takes this knife, and stabs him. Yes, O Shaykh, something like this in any Muslim country, but there is a focus on Saudi Arabia and Palestine, O Shaykh?

The Shaykh : It has ruined the whole cycle and the whole situation! Disbelievers in the Islamic system are of three types: dhimmis, whom they call today "citizens," and this is a colonial term, like calling riba (usury or interest) "interest." It is not permissible for a Muslim, and especially for someone like Abu Faris, to use the term "citizens." A Muslim is not to be called a citizen, and a dhimmi is not to be called a citizen, because the land is the land of the Muslims. The disbelievers living in the lands of the Muslims are either from the people of the dhimmah, as we are discussing now, or they are mu'ahidin (those under a treaty). This is the second category. The third category is that they are muharibin (warring) or muharabin (at war). The first category is the people of the dhimmah, who chose to live in the lands of Islam and under the system of Islam, the rule of Islam, and they accepted the rulings of Islam in their entirety. There are some specific rulings for them, among which is what came explicitly in the Noble Qur'an: And they have many rulings. If one of them kills a Muslim, or encroaches upon the honor of a Muslim woman, or insults Allah and the Messenger, or insults Islam, then at that time the covenant between him and the Muslims is broken, and he is killed. So this disbeliever who preferred life under the system of Islam and pays the jizyah (the tax on protected non-Muslims) with his hand while in a state of humiliation—this is one of his rights over the Muslims: that it is not permissible to encroach upon him, not in his person, not in his wealth, and not in his honor. It was reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: So the blood of the dhimmi is protected and respected, just like the blood of a Muslim, in that it is not permissible to encroach upon him. Likewise, the second category of disbelievers are the mu'ahidin. The mu'ahid differs from the dhimmi in one aspect and agrees with him in another. The mu'ahid differs from the dhimmi in that his residence is not in the lands of Islam, but he is a guest in the lands of Islam based on a treaty existing between the state of the Muslims and the state of these mu'ahidin. So these people agree with the dhimmis in that it is not permissible to encroach upon them, nor upon their wealth, nor upon their honor. The third category remains, which is the muharib, whether we say muharab (at war) or muharib (warring), and each has its correct meaning. He is muharab by the Muslims, and he is muharib against the Muslims. So whichever we say, the meaning is correct. This is the one to whom the previous question may apply, in that it is permissible to kill him. But if he is a dhimmi or a mu'ahid, it is not permissible to kill him. However, as the jurists say, every rule has exceptions. The muharib may be fought, but this has a system; it has, I mean, regulations and constraints. It is not permissible for a Muslim to take the ruling in this absolute manner. For example, we said regarding the dhimmi and the mu'ahid that it is not permissible to encroach upon their blood, wealth, or honor, likewise the mu'ahid. But the muharib may be encroached upon by killing, but it is not permissible to commit zina (unlawful sexual intercourse) or to seize honor under the pretext that they are muharabin or muharibin. But the important point in the question, as it appears, is the killing. So I say that one must look at what type of killing is permissible for the Muslim to direct at the muharib disbeliever. We say this if there is actually a war existing between the Muslims and the disbelievers, and the matter is not as it is now, unfortunately, as I have recently disclosed after an attempt to conceal it, as is the case in Palestine and in Saudi Arabia. As for Palestine, the matter is very clear that if one Jew is killed, unfortunately, more than one Muslim will be killed in return, if I do not tell you, tens of Muslims. Therefore, although the original ruling in this specific matter, considering them as muharibin, and undoubtedly as colonizers of the lands of the Muslims, from this angle it is permissible to kill these Jews without doubt or hesitation. But the killer should be in a position where he is able to kill and does not cause harm to himself or to the Muslims living in that land, with whom he lives. Otherwise, the loss at that time will be greater than the gain. It is known to all Muslim scholars, with no disagreement among them, that repelling harm (mafsadah) takes precedence over seeking benefit (maslahah). So killing the disbeliever is a benefit for the Muslims, but if killing the disbeliever results in the killing of more than one Muslim, then this is a greater harm than that benefit. And therefore, it is not permissible to proceed to commit such a killing, which is permissible in principle. Likewise, we say, and a fortiori regarding Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, unfortunately, got involved and brought this calamity to its lands, and it let the colonizing disbelievers into their lands without fighting or war or anything, but rather they were welcomed and took our land so that they would drive off our enemy. And when the enemy settled in their lands, now what do we call these Americans who have settled in Saudi Arabia? From here, in matters that have extreme precision, if you say they are people of the dhimmah, who are the people of the dhimmah? If they are people of the dhimmah, the upper hand is for the Muslims and the lower hand is for the disbelievers. And if you say these are mu'ahidin, truly mu'ahidin, there is an agreement between Saudi Arabia and them, this is what appears to us, and it is not for us to reach what is in the hearts of the rulers. And if we say they are not dhimmis, then certainly, and if we also say they are muharabin, likewise they are not muharibin regarding Saudi Arabia, because they did not come with them except because they were peaceful. So here comes the issue of individual action, as we say regarding Palestine, in addition to what has been mentioned before, that there is a benefit in killing the Jew, but there is a harm that opposes it in the killing of more than one Muslim. Another thing comes: these individual actions are not looked at from the perspective of public benefit, but rather a benefit, even if religious, but personal. Because this looks at his personal religious benefit, so he kills this disbeliever, but he did not think about what results from this killing, which is permissible in principle. Likewise, we say regarding Saudi Arabia that if we assume that a Muslim there was zealous for Allah and His Messenger, and for this humiliation that has settled upon them due to some rulers, and he went and killed, for example, an American man or an American woman, it will not be for the benefit of the Muslims at all, because the Muslim ruler will be the one to execute the ruling of killing for this killer. And more than that, for this reason, I conclude by saying that these individual actions are not permissible except with the permission of the Muslim ruler. And if there is no Muslim ruler today, it is upon us not to dare to such individual actions, because their consequence will be corruption in the community, not reform.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.