The covenant of security and Anwar al-Awlaki Latest fatwa

All of our trustworthy Salafi ulama have stated time and time again that any Muslim entering darul kufr(the land of the disbelievers)with a Visa or attains citizenship through any means whether he was born in that disbelieving land or is naturalised,has a covenant of security with the respective non-muslim country. This is something that most right-minded muslims accepted even the neo-takferi/khariji muhajiroon/Islam for uk/muslims against crusades whatever they want to call themselves accepted this fact.

In the latest February edition of the online Jihadi magazine called”Inspire” Awlaki states from his hideout in Yemen “Muslims are not bound by the covenants of citizenship and visa that exists between them and the nations of dar al harb. It is consensus of our Scholars that the property of the disbeliever in dar al-harb is halal for the Muslims and is a legitimate target for the mujahideen”

Alwaki then goes on to argue that Jihad is done by clandestine (secret) methods performed by underground networks and that these underground networks can take fai which is wealth that is taken from the disbelievers without force.

He states that all contracts of security and peace agreements signed by Muslim leaders and  disbelieving nations are cancelled  and the Muslim rulers have lost their legitimacy for the following reasons.

1.Governance of man made laws

2.Taking the disbelieves as allies

3.Fighting the awliya of Allaah.

He then argues using some opinions of some hanafi scholars that it is permissible to steal the wealth of the disbelievers in darul harb.

The main theme of this fatawa is to give the green light for the unsuspecting vulnerable muslim youth in the west to steal money from the kuffar to “help the Jihad”.

We find Awalaki fatwaa problematic and we have a number of objections and points to raise.

First and formost none from the trustworthy Scholars that are alive today have declared the US, UK or any other western country as Dar al-Harb (the abode of war).

We usually here these fatawa coming from the likes of people who themselves reside in darul kufr taking social benifits or are hiding in some cave somewhere.

Let us for argument’s sake say that the western countries darul harb the fatawaa of Ibn ul-Mundhir opposses this he said” If a (muslim) man enters Dar ul-Harb with a covenant of security then he is safe from them based on their agreement of security and they are also safe from him.Thus it is not allowed for him to betray them cause fear to them or kill them.If he takes anything from them he has to return it back to them and if he takes anything with him back to dar -ul- Islam he has to give it back. A Muslim should neither purchase such taken property nor destroy it because the wealth and property has a trust (al-Awsat fi1s Sunan Wa`l Ijma wa Iktilaaf vol2 page 292.

Ibn Quduma said in Mugni stated; “As for betraying then it is haraam (prohibited), because they gave him a covenant of safety and security on the condition that he will neither betray them or harm them, and even if this was not written therein as it is known contextually, thus whoever gained a covenant of safety and security into our countries and betrayed us then it is as if he withdrew his covenant. So therefore then it is prohibited to portray them, because our religion prohibits betrayal.” In this respect the Prophet sallalaahu alayhhi wa salaam said; ” The Muslims must stick to their conditions”(Hasan Sahih Abu Dawud). (Mugni kitab ul jihad in the issue of entering the land of the enemy with the agreement/covenant of safety and security.vol p13 p.152)

It is because the likes of the above fatwa we condemn treacherous acts like the 7th of July bombing and all plots by Muslims living in the west to cause harm to the non-Muslim in their respective host countries.those  who have visa or citizenship of western who countries then act treacherously to their covenant of security are acting in opposition to the deen.We also find it very hypocritical of  those who know that the covenant of security is the haqq (the truth)but refuse to condemn the treachery of their Muslim brothers and say we neither condemn or approve of these acts of terror and plots of terror I believe they have a lack sincerity to the Allah his book and they are not giving sincere advice to the general Muslims.


  1. E
    July 29, 2011 at 14:12

    Salam alaykum, I fully understand that its not allowed for a foreigner to enter dar al harb with a convenant and then break it, however,

    Can you please post the proofs/statements of scholars regarding those who were born in dar al kufr, i.e how do they have a convenant when they are not entering the dar al harb but rather were born there? Also how would a convenant be made according to the proofs/statements of the scholars?


    • September 30, 2011 at 17:12

      Shaykh Ibn uthaymeen told a gathering of muslims in the UK.

      “I invite you to have respect those who have the right that they be respected,from those between you and whom you have a covenant (of peace and security) for the land in which you are living(i.e the uk) is such that there is an (implicit) covenant between you Muslims and them(i.e kuffar government).If this were not the case they would have killed you or expelled preserve this covenant and do not prove treacherous to it,since treachery is a sign of the hypocrites,and it it is not from the way of the believers”

      Shaykh Muhammed bin Salih bin uthaymeen during a telelink lecture to the uk on 28th July 2000.

      I(Jafar) had the Honor of being one of Muslims the sheikh addressed on that day

  2. Mimoun
    September 21, 2011 at 02:49

    Assalamu allaikum,

    Please go and do your homework about the ‘illuminati’ and how Muslims are deceived. All those famous terrorist attacks where magical ritual sacrifices done by the kuffaar. After that than please review this article.

    Barak Allahoe fiek

  3. TheMan
    October 12, 2011 at 00:27

    Barakallah feek, I appreciate your response from the words of Shaykh Ibn Uthaymeen -Raheemullah.

    One correction on Dar Al Harb though, regardless of whether scholars today have specifically named UK a Dar Al Harb, some of the scholars of the past have mentioned that there is Dar Al Islam & Dar Al Harb and even stated that EVERY place where kufr prevails is dar al harb. Please see below. So the fact that none of the salafi scholars today have not mentioned it as a dar al harb is inconsequential really.

    One thing I have noticed a lot of brothers do (and I give them husn dhann that it is not intentional) is to only push one side of an issue wherein there is ikhtilaf and thus people end up regarding it is an issue where there is ijmaa, May Allah give us refuge from such behaviour and bless us with adab al khilaf.

    Ibn al-‘Arabi al-Maaliki said: Hijrah (migration) means leaving dar al-harb [non-Muslim lands] and going to dar al-islam [Muslim lands]. This was obligatory at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and remains so after his time for those who fear for their lives. From Nayl al-Awtaar, 8/33, by al-Shawkaani.

    Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said concerning the hadeeth, “I disown every Muslim who settles among the mushrikeen”:

    This is to be understood as referring to those who are not safe to practise their religion there. Fath al-Baari, commentary on hadeeth no. 2825

    In al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah (20/206) it says: Dar al-harb refers to EVERY place in which the rule of kufr prevails.

    • October 14, 2011 at 22:18

      If we take the U.K as the example, then is this a place of Darul Harb?

  4. TheMan
    October 20, 2011 at 18:48

    Dar al-harb refers to EVERY place in which the rule of kufr prevails.

    So according to the quote above yes. Is there proof to the contrary? What scholars have said its not?

    Perhaps you are familiar with the fatwaa of Ahmad Shaakir in Kalimaat Al Haqq which says muslims must migrate from UK if they are not able to fight against the kuffar?!

    NB: I am fully aware of that which has been quoted in his book concerning the errors of Anwar Awlaki and that we are obliged to have certain conduct (e.g if given a convenant of safety not to betray it) in dar al harb, so that is not something I’m questioning or debating, at this point all I’m saying is….EVERY place where the rule of kufr prevails is a dar al harb is a legitimate opinion of some scholars at least.

  5. October 23, 2011 at 22:37

    A few points yes its true that the early scholars divided the world into two places darul islam and darul harb but this could be down to the political situation of their time,
    Later scholars like ibn taymiyah added a third category Darul kufr,

    Ahmad shakir(rahimullah) fatawaa that you quoted regarding UK Muslims if he did say it is probably referring to the suez canal crisis when the uk and France were at war with egypt and in this context the shaikh would have made a fatawa like this as he was egyptian himself and lived through this crisis and his fatawa is probably referring to this situation and it is not general to uk Muslims at all times.

    Another point to reflect on is the uk at this time has a peace agreement through diplomatic relations with all 52 muslim countries so for anyone to follow an opinion that this is darul harb is really far from reality

    and my last point is to spread the opinion that the western countries at this moment are darul harb(the abode of war) is reckless and irresponsible and was used by the takferi kharaji duat like faisel jamaica and abu hamza al-misri and Anwar awlaki to mislead vulnerable youth to do criminal acts like robbing security vans and petrol stations thinking that they were doing some kind of Jihad and whatever they stole was war booty!!

  6. TheMan
    October 26, 2011 at 21:15

    Rather, Ahmad Shaakir’s fatwaa was for muslims everywhere, he specifically mentioned UK too, if you wish I can furnish you with a copy of the arabic. Really, its better to speak after researching an issue properly.

    The juhaal that you mentioned cause division and likewise people that push one opinion and act like it is the only opinion cause further division.

    I would advise you to read further, especially the fatwaa of Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir -raheemullah and as for the statement that we have a peace agreement, which scholars said that? And even if they did, is there an ijmaa such that other opinions are inadmissable in this matter?!

  7. October 28, 2011 at 16:24

    Yes send me the fatwa in Arabic in the full context, as for peace agreements between the uk and other muslim states sheikh fawzaan in answering a question about killing americans in saudi said “It is not permissible to betray(the trust) with them nor kill them.The states with which there is an agreement between us and them , along with diplomatic representation it is impermissible to betray them,The reference for this can be found on page 212/213 of the refutation Anwar alwaki errors in the fiqh of jihad.i will be happy to give you a free copy.Send the fatwa of Ahmed shakir to

  8. TheMan
    November 3, 2011 at 00:15…AndIslamic/pdf

    Arabic from his book Kalimaat Al Haqq….13 pages

    Mashallah, I dont dispute what Sh Fawzaan said there. However, that is about saudi arabia where americans have been given a covenant of security by ‘muslims’ is it not?. Not being funny but how does that apply to UK?….And for the record, I am not advocating that people wage war in UK, I sincerely wish to know where people get this argument from and am not convinced of calling those who hold a different opinion takfeeri/jihaadi or radical etc…

    I am also wary as people take fatawaa of Shaykhs such as Shaykh Fawzaan out of context, like the brothers who use one of his general fatawaa to report ‘radical’ muslims to authorities and spy on them in the west. said fatwaa:

    Is informing about any corrupt individual who wants to destabilize the security of the country or who wants to spread corruption and mischief considered to be spying (tajassus) which Allāh has forbidden?
    Answer from Shaykh Fawzān:
    This is not spying, because spying is going to the enemies from the kuffār with the secrets of the Muslims in order for the enemies to discover these secrets. But this (informing) is just following up on the people of evil in order to prevent their evil and in order to purify the society from their filth. The spy (jāsūs) he is the one who the fuqahā have said should be executed, he is the one who spies for the kuffār against the Muslims. As for the one who keeps tabs on corrupt people in order to expose their evil, then such a person is not a spy.
    See Shaykh, Dr Sālih bin Fawzān al-Fawzān, Muhammad bin Fahd al-Husayn (editor and compiler), al-Ijabāt al-Muhimmah fi’l-Mashākil al-Mumilah (Riyadh: Matābi’ al-Humaydī, 1425 AH/2004 CE, Second Edition), pp.99-100.

    Whereas this fatwaa does not specifically mention non muslim countries, and the shaykh when asked about doing such in a non muslim country said as follows in the following question and answer: … re=related

    The Shaykh was asked: ‘I come from a disbelieving country in which there are many kharijis. How should I be with them and is it allowed for me to inform the disbelieving security service about them?’


    ‘If you are able to advise them and explain things to them, do it so that Allah guides whom He wills from amongst them. If you are not able to do it, then you should keep yourself away from them and avoid them so that you escape their evil.

    YOU ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE to INFORM about them in these countries with their kufr leaders while they are even worse than them’

  9. NotYou
    November 3, 2011 at 20:15

    I posted the link but it was deleted?! Subhanallah..Those were the words of Shaykh Ahmad Shaakir -raheemullah, in arabic. If this is a public forum the link should be public not just for your benefit …

  10. November 4, 2011 at 23:17

    I am sad that this issue is a shubah for you.The point of evidence from the sheikh`s fatawaa is that he said that “The states with which there is an agreement between us and them , along with diplomatic representation it is impermissible to betray them”.The point being there is an agreement between saudi and other states like the UK,US along with diplomatic reprentation i.e embassies constitutes a peace agreement between those respective states,so likewise if a muslim comes to the uk where there exists diplomatic relations between his country and the uk it is impermissble to harm uk citizens because of the implicit peace agreement and his entry visa all implies a covenant of security,If this issue is not clear to you please contact sheikh fawzaan himself and ask him if there is a peace agreement between muslim states and the uk or not.

    As for uk citizens that are muslims that are born here their passport,citizenship are their indiviual agreement of peace and security betwenn them and the uk state if he wants to break this individual peace agreement he must remit his citzenship,and uk passport to the uk government and leave and go to a muslim country or any other country.I hope this is clear

    I did not delete any link I just had not approve it yet and the link does not work.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: