Part 4
Dr. Hummam Sultani
Third Doubt: The Doha Agreement and the Accusation of Helping the Disbelievers
Does the Islamic Emirate’s promise in its agreement with America that it would stop al-Qaeda and other jihadi groups from carrying out armed operations from Afghan soil against other countries mean helping the disbelievers against the Muslims, disavowing the Muslims (bara’) and showing allegiance toward the disbelievers (wala’)? Likewise, is the accusation that the IEA cooperated with America and other countries in the fight against Daesh true, and can takfir be declared against the IEA on this basis?
On the basis of these accusations, the Daeshi Khawarij claim that the IEA has committed acts that cause a person to leave Islam. To understand this doubt, it is first necessary to keep in mind the historical background that paved the way for talks and the agreement with America.
After the al-Qaeda attacks in New York and Washington, Afghanistan faced a great trial. The government of the First Islamic Emirate (IEA) was brought down, its leaders were martyred or arrested, young men and women faced prison and torture, honor was trampled underfoot, and even elders and children were not safe from killing and bloodshed. The country was occupied, its wealth looted and its refugees scattered. The occupying forces, the government that ruled with their support, and some neighboring countries handed many of these refugees over to the tyrannical rulers of their own countries. In this way, many NATO member countries, under American leadership, fought against the IEA for nearly twenty years.
Despite all these hardships, the IEA did not disavow the mujahideen, did not hand any Arab or non-Arab mujahid over to the forces of kufr, and did not hand them over to those forces as part of any deal, whereas many Islamic countries subservient to America did such things.
After the long war, widespread destruction and constant insecurity, the people of Afghanistan needed peace and calm, reconstruction and the return of normal life. Under these conditions, the path of talks and an agreement was chosen for the withdrawal of foreign forces, the release of prisoners, the end of the war and the restoration of governmental order. Now that the foreign forces have left and power has changed hands, these matters should be recalled as the historical background of the talks, no longer as future aims.
The basic question in this discussion is whether talks, peace or a ceasefire agreement with the disbelievers is forbidden in itself. It is clear from the Quran and the Sunnah that the path of peace exists in principle, but the ruling on each individual agreement must be determined by taking its terms, conditions and consequences into account.
Allah (SWT) says:
﴿وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ﴾ (Surah Al-Anfal: 61)
“And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah. Indeed, it is He who is the Hearing, the Knowing.”
In the Seerah of the Prophet (PBUH), the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is a clear example of this. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) made an agreement with the Quraysh and also accepted some conditions that were seemingly difficult for the Muslims. One of these conditions was that a Muslim man who came to the Prophet from the Quraysh would be handed back (this condition was specific to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) and, in the view of the majority of Hanafi scholars, is abrogated). When Hazrat Abu Basir (RA) reached Madinah, the Quraysh demanded that he be returned, and the Messenger of Allah (PBUH), in order to observe the agreement, sent him back with the men sent by the Quraysh. This event is reported in detail in Sahih al-Bukhari (Kitab al-Shuroot, Hadiths 2731 and 2732).
This event demonstrates the importance of peace and of keeping a promise, but whether any particular condition of that agreement applies to the present circumstances is a separate discussion in fiqh.
On fulfilling a promise, Allah (SWT) says:
﴿وَأَوْفُوا بِعَهْدِ اللَّهِ إِذَا عَاهَدْتُمْ وَلَا تَنْقُضُوا الْأَيْمَانَ بَعْدَ تَوْكِيدِهَا﴾ (Surah An-Nahl: 91)
“And fulfill the covenant of Allah when you have taken it, [O believers], and do not break oaths after their confirmation…”
Also, giving refuge to an oppressed Muslim, handing someone over to another country, and allowing armed operations against other countries from one’s own soil are separate matters. The course chosen on one matter does not by itself prove the ruling on another. What commitments and responsibilities were accepted on these matters in the agreement in question must be determined in the light of the original text of the agreement.
For this reason, talks, peace or a ceasefire alone cannot be counted as disavowal of the Muslims, or as assistance to the disbelievers of the kind that constitutes kufr. And every condition of an agreement cannot be considered correct merely in the name of expediency. The scholarly way is for each condition to be identified separately, for reliable evidence to be presented about it, and for it then to be examined in light of Sharia principles.
The criticism that this agreement has placed a permanent prohibition on jihad is also not correct. To draw such a conclusion from an agreement, its main conditions, its duration and the scope of its application must be examined. A peace or ceasefire agreement alone does not mean the permanent abrogation of any Sharia ruling. Of course, the existence of a way to withdraw from an agreement does not mean that one side may break its promise whenever it wishes. The conditions of the agreement and the relevant Sharia rulings must be observed in this matter.
A correct understanding of conditions, attention to consequences and knowing the right times for war and peace are among the important responsibilities of governance. Making the whole world one’s enemy and staying at war with everyone at all times is not the way of the Prophet (PBUH). Constant wars and clashes neither ensure a state’s stability nor guarantee the people’s peace and safety. A leadership that ignores conditions, capacity and consequences and turns every disagreement into war may, instead of reaching its aim, bring its own people to ruin as well.
The Prophet (PBUH) made various agreements with disbelieving tribes and groups according to circumstances: with some he made peace or agreed to a ceasefire, with some he made a covenant or pact, and with some he made an agreement of mutual cooperation. After arriving in Madinah, he also established mutual rights and responsibilities with the Jewish groups through agreements. In these matters the way of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) was based on keeping the promise and dealing with each group according to its own conduct. For this reason, when a group broke the agreement, action was taken only against that group for its violation, and the blame for one group’s breaking of the agreement was not laid on all the Jewish groups.
This is the wisdom behind the political approach of the best of creation (PBUH), and his way was always the best and always will be. Whoever opens his tongue in reproach and criticism against this way, refuses to accept it out of pride, or calls it help to the disbelievers and compromise in the religion, brings about his own ruin with his own hands!
The IEA has not promised anyone that it will deny refuge to weak and oppressed Muslims, nor has it agreed with anyone to hand them over to their own countries. The IEA’s promise is only that it will not allow Afghan territory to be used to wage war against other countries.
So where in this policy did friendship (wala’) with the disbelievers come from? Where in this policy is there any declaration of separation and disavowal (bara’) from the Muslims? And what form of help to the disbelievers against the Muslims is there in it? All of this is nothing but the product of the minds of the misguided and those who invent slander.
As for the accusation that the IEA cooperates with America or anyone else in the fight against Daesh, it too is baseless. Whether before or after Afghanistan’s independence, no such cooperation by the IEA can be established. The IEA officials have stated again and again that it needs no joint operations with anyone and does not need anyone’s help against Daesh. The IEA has the ability to wipe out this group on its own, and has demonstrated this ability in practice.
