Is every form of alliance with the kuffar (disbelievers) kufr al akbar (major kufr)?

Excerpt taken from the above book available here [Excellent detailed research]:

http://the-finalrevelation.blogspot.my/2015/11/refuting-khariji-notions-on-alliance.html

The Madhab of Najdi Scholars regarding the types of alliances with the Kuffar 

The Allamah, the doctor Abdullah bin Abdul Azeez Al Jibreen mentioned in his research, "Al Wala wal Bara, wa ahkaam at ta'amil ma'al kuffar wal mubtadi'ah wal fussaq" which was published in "Al Bahooth Al Islamiyyah Magazine": Allying with the kuffar against the Muslims is the same be it fighting with them (against Muslims), or supporting them with money, or weapons, or by spying on the Muslims, or other than this; all this will come under two categories:

First category: To help them in any way, just out of love for them, and desire to make them victorious over Muslims (without another worldly reason), so this is disbelief that removes out one from the millah.

Sheikh Abdur Rahman As - Sa'adi, in the tafseer of the statement of Allah:

"And whoever allies with them, then they are Zalimoon":

And that Zulm which happens on account of Tawalli, if this is a complete form of Tawalli, then this will be kufr that will eject one from the boundaries of Islam, and this comes under the level that is a very significant and extreme one, and there is an another form as well (that does not removes out one from the millah). 

And he also said in the tafseer of the statement of Allah, "And whosoever allies them, then they are from among them.":

Indeed the complete form of Tawalli, requires one moving (from Islam) to their religion. And the lesser form of Tawalli may even lead to bigger one, then it would increase gradually little by little until he becomes one of them."

And Sheikh Abdul Lateef bin Abdur Rahman bin Hasan Aal Ash Sheikh after mentioning the incident of Hatib, in the beginning of Suratul Mumtahinah:

"O you who have believed, do not take My enemies and your enemies as allies.." (60:1) are the ayaat concerning Hatib, and he rahimahullah said: "So Hatib here he has been called one with Iman, and been described as such, and this prohibition has come in a general way, but it is specifically for this reason, thus a proof about his intention for it, with the fact that the ayah also proves that his act is a type of mawalah (friendship), and that he went to them with (some sort of) affection, and that the one who did that act has deviated from the path, but his statement, "Regarding him, he has told you the truth (so let him go)" proves that he did not make takfeer due to that, if he believes in Allah and his messenger, without any doubt or suspicion (about Islam), rather he did it for worldly reason.

And had he made takfeer on him, he wouldn't let him go. Nor would he say, "What do you know; perhaps Allah looked upon the Badr warriors and said, 'Do as you like, for I have forgiven you.'" 

This is why one cannot make takfeer on him; so we say: Had he committed kufr, nothing of his past good deeds (such as Badr) would be of any value due to kufr (al akbar) and it's ruling; as kufr eradicates and wipes off that what was before, because of the statement of Allah: "And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (5:5) 

And his statement, "But if they had associated others with Allah, then worthless for them would be whatever they were doing." (6:88) 

And kufr makes the good deeds worthless, and iman itself completely; so it's hard to think that (his act is kufr). 

As for his saying, the Exalted, - "And whosoever turns to them (wa man yatawallahum), from amongst you then he is from them." And his saying, "You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the last day loving those who oppose Allah and his messenger", and also his saying, "O you who believe! Take not for Auliyaa (protectors and helpers) those who take your religion for a mockery and fun from among those who received the scripture (Jews and Christians) before you, not from among the disbelievers, and fear Allah if indeed you are true believers. (5:57) 

The sunnah has explained it, and has restricted it and has specified it, to be in relation to the unrestricted general muwalaat (frienship, loyalty). And the root of all muwalaat is hubb (affection / love) and assistance (nusrah) and friendship (sadaaqah), and there are many levels than this. And every sin (from all of this), has its own share of sin and portion of threat (of punishment) and rebuke." 

[TN: Shaykh `Abdul Lateef censuring the juhala who make rampant takfeer without actually dividing the allegiance into their proper types said:

And this is known to the salaf, those who are deeply rooted in `ilm from amongst the Sahaaba and Taba`een with respect to this topic and also other than it. However the affair has become difficult and the meanings have become hidden and the rulings in this regard became confusing to the khuloof (later generations) of the foreigners (non arabs) and those raised among arabs but not truly arabs, those who have no knowledge with respect to this matter (of takfeer) and nor do they have any sound knowledge or acquaintance with the meanings of the qur’an and sunnah] 

End of the speech of Sheikh Abdul Lateef rahimahullah. (He spoke in detail on this topic, one may refer to Durar as Saniyyah 1/ 473-472) 

And more than one from among the people of knowledge related the ijmaa' (consensus) of scholars that alliance with kuffar against Muslims, out of pure love and affection towards them, and desire for their victory over Islam and the Muslims is kufr that removes out one from the millah. 

Second category: To ally with the kuffar through any form of alliance, which may be for the sake of (i) personal benefit, or (ii) out of fear, or (iii) worldly enmity between him and the one who he fights against with the kuffar,

then this is a prohibited alliance, and one of the major sins, but it is not a form of kufr that removes out one from the millah. And from among the proofs that this form of alliance does not entitles takfeer: Is what Imam At - Tahawi related the consensus of the people of knowledge that it is not permissible to kill the one who (merely) spies on Muslims. 

And what At - Tahawi related also proves that (mere) spying does not makes a person an apostate.

And the proof for the consensus is: (the case of) Hati bin Abi Balta'ah radhi`allahu anhu. He spied on the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and on the Muslims at the time of conquest of Makkah. He wrote to a Polythiest lady of Makkah informing about the plan of the messenger sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, though the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam had made this absolutely secret, so that Quraish doesn't (gets prepared) for the fight. And this was the reason for Hatib (that he would help the Quraish now, and Quraish would in return help him) and he wrote this letter for his personal benefits, but inspite of all that the prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam did not did judge him to be an apostate, nor did he put on him the punishment for apostacy, thus proves that what he did (ie., spied) is not a kufr that removes out one from millah. 

Sheikhul Islam Ibn Taymiyyah while speaking about disbelievers: "It may be found among people love due to blood relation, or due to some (worldly, non - religious) reason, so it will be considered a sin that would decrease his Iman, and he won't become a disbeliever due to that, like what is found (in the case of) Hatib when he wrote some (secret) information of the (plan of the) prophet sallallahu alayhi wa sallam, and Allah revealed concerning it.

And like what is found in the case of Sa'd ibn Ubadah when he helped ibn Ubay in the incident of ifk, so Sa'd bin Muadh said: "By Allah dont kill him, and you won’t be able to kill him." Aisha said: "He was a righteous man in the past, but jealousy (of his tribal love) overpowered him." And due to this doubt Umar called Hatib a Munafiq (hypocrite). For Umar interpreted him to be a hypocrite due to the doubt of what he did." 

(End quote Sheikhul Islam – Above fatwa of shaykh ibn jibreen rahimahullah and ibn taymiyyah was slightly annoted and modified from the translation given to me by Arshan Ansari in his love for the ulema e Najd and defending them from the accusation that all of them fell into the wrong ijtihad of not dividing muwallat into types or distinguishing the types of alliance which makes one a kafir and the type which doesn’t.)

Original Arabic transcript:

ذكره الأستاذ الدكتور عبد الله بن عبد العزيز الجبرين في بحثه: (الولاء والبراء، وأحكام التعامل مع الكفار والمبتدعة والفساق) المنشور في مجلة البحوث الإسلامية -وهي مجلة دورية، تصدر عن الرئاسة العامة لإدارات البحوث العلمية، والإفتاء، والدعوة والإرشادـ فقال: إعانة الكفار على المسلمين، سواء أكانت بالقتال معهم، أم بإعانتهم بالمال، أو السلاح، أم كانت بالتجسس لهم على المسلمين، أم غير ذلك، تكون على وجهين:

ـ الوجه الأول: أن يعينهم بأي إعانة، محبة لهم، ورغبة في ظهورهم على المسلمين، فهذه الإعانة كفر مخرج من الملة.

قال الشيخ عبد الرحمن السعدي، في تفسير قوله تعالى: {وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ فَأُولَئِكَ هُمُ الظَّالِمُونَ}: "وذلك الظلم يكون بحسب التولي، فإن كان توليا تاما، كان ذلك كفرا مخرجا عن دائرة الإسلام، وتحت ذلك من المراتب ما هو غليظ، وما هو دون ذلك".

وقال أيضا في تفسير قوله تعالى: {وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ}: "إن التولي التام، يوجب الانتقال إلى دينهم، والتولي القليل يدعو إلى الكثير، ثم يتدرج شيئا فشيئا حتى يكون العبد منهم".

وقال الشيخ عبد اللطيف بن عبد الرحمن بن حسن بعد ذكره لقصة حاطب، ونزول صدر سورة الممتحنة: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ} الآيات في شأن حاطب، قال: "فدخل حاطب في المخاطبة باسم الإيمان، ووصفه به، وتناوله النهي بعمومه، وله خصوص السبب، الدال على إرادته، مع أن في الآية الكريمة ما يشعر أن فعل حاطب نوع موالاة، وأنه أبلغ إليهم بالمودة، وأن فاعل ذلك قد ضل سواء السبيل، لكن قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: (صدقكم، خلوا سبيله) ظاهر في أنه لا يكفر بذلك، إذ كان مؤمنا بالله ورسوله، غير شاك، ولا مرتاب، وإنما فعل ذلك لغرض دنيوي، ولو كفر لما قال: (خلوا سبيله). ولا يقال: قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم: «ما يدريك لعل الله اطلع على أهل بدر، فقال: اعملوا ما شئتم، فقد غفرت لكم» هو المانع من تكفيره؛ لأنا نقول: لو كفر لما بقي من حسناته ما يمنع من لحاق الكفر وأحكامه؛ فإن الكفر يهدم ما قبله، لقوله تعالى: {وَمَنْ يَكْفُرْ بِالْإِيمَانِ فَقَدْ حَبِطَ عَمَلُهُ}، وقوله: {وَلَوْ أَشْرَكُوا لَحَبِطَ عَنْهُمْ مَا كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ} والكفر محبط للحسنات، والإيمان بالإجماع؛ فلا يظن هذا. وأما قوله تعالى: {وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ}، وقوله: {لَا تَجِدُ قَوْمًا يُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ يُوَادُّونَ مَنْ حَادَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ} وقوله: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الَّذِينَ اتَّخَذُوا دِينَكُمْ هُزُوًا وَلَعِبًا مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِنْ قَبْلِكُمْ وَالْكُفَّارَ أَوْلِيَاءَ وَاتَّقُوا اللَّهَ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ مُؤْمِنِينَ} فقد فسرته السنة، وقيدته، وخصته بالموالاة المطلقة العامة. وأصل الموالاة هو: الحب، والنصرة، والصداقة، ودون ذلك مراتب متعددة، ولكل ذنب حظه، وقسط من الوعيد والذم" انتهى كلام الشيخ عبد اللطيف -رحمه الله-.

وقد حكى غير واحد من أهل العلم إجماع العلماء على أن إعانة الكفار على المسلمين، محبة لهم، ورغبة في انتصارهم على الإسلام وأهله، كفر مخرج من الملة.

ـ الوجه الثاني: أن يعين الكفار على المسلمين بأي إعانة، ويكون الحامل له على ذلك مصلحة شخصية، أو خوفا، أو عداوة دنيوية بينه وبين من يقاتله الكفار من المسلمين، فهذه الإعانة محرمة، وكبيرة من كبائر الذنوب، ولكنها ليست من الكفر المخرج من الملة. ومن الأدلة على أن هذه الإعانة غير مكفرة: ما حكاه الإمام الطحاوي من إجماع أهل العلم على أن الجاسوس المسلم لا يجوز قتله، ومقتضى ما حكاه الطحاوي أنه غير مرتد. ومستند هذا الإجماع: أن حاطب بن أبي بلتعة -رضي الله عنه- قد جس على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وعلى المسلمين في عزوة فتح مكة، فكتب كتابا إلى مشركي مكة يخبرهم فيه بمسير النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إليهم، وكان النبي عليه الصلاة والسلام قد أخفى وجهة سيره؛ لئلا تستعد قريش للقتال، وكان الدافع لحاطب، ولكتابة هذا الكتاب هو مصلحة شخصية، ومع ذلك لم يحكم النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم بردته، ولم يقم عليه حد الردة، فدل ذلك على أن ما عمله ليس كفرا مخرجا من الملة.

قال شيخ الإسلام ابن تيمية عند كلامه على الكفار: "وقد تحصل للرجل موادتهم لرحم، أو حاجة، فتكون ذنبا ينقص به إيمانه، ولا يكون به كافرا، كما حصل من حاطب لما كاتب المشركين ببعض أخبار النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم، وأنزل الله فيه: {يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا عَدُوِّي وَعَدُوَّكُمْ أَوْلِيَاءَ تُلْقُونَ إِلَيْهِمْ بِالْمَوَدَّةِ} وكما حصل لسعد بن عبادة لما انتصر لابن أبي في قصة الإفك، فقال لسعد بن معاذ: والله لا تقتله، ولا تقدر على قتله. قالت عائشة: وكان قبل ذلك رجلا صالحا، ولكن احتملته الحمية. ولهذه الشبهة سمى عمر حاطبا منافقا .. فكان عمر متأولا في تسميته منافقا للشبهة التي فعلها".

فإذا ثبت أن ما فعله حاطب ليس ردة -وهذا مجمع عليه-مع أن رسالته لو وصلت إلى مشركي مكة لاستعدت قريش للحرب، وهذا خلاف ما قصد إليه النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من تعمية خبر غزوه لهم، فما عمله حاطب إعانة عظيمة للكفار في حربهم للمسلمين في غزوة من أهم الغزوات الفاصلة في الإسلام -إذا ثبت ذلك، علم أن الإعانة لا تكون كفرا حتى يكون الحامل عليها محبة الكفار، والرغبة في انتصارهم على المسلمين. اهـ.