The killing of the aid worker Allan Henning

Adam Gadahn (Azzam al-Amriki) rahimahullah

You brought up the issue of treatment of captives while comparing the Islamic Emirate with other Jihad movements around the world. It may seem odd to dwell on such a topic at a time when innocent Muslims are being kidnapped, raped, butchered and bombed to bits  at the hands of the unbelievers and apostates in Afghanistan, Arakan, Assam, Bangladesh, the Caucasus, the Central African Republic, East Turkistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Pakistan, Palestine, the Philippines, Tunisia, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen (to name just a few places), but what is your comment on the killing of the British hostage and volunteer aid worker Alan Henning by the Islamic State faction in Syria?

My comment is that it was a blatant and apparently deliberate violation of what we have been taught by the Ulama of the Mujahideen and leaders of Jihad, which is that Islam doesn't call on us to treat all unbelievers alike; rather Islam calls on us to treat individuals fairly and equietably and return favours in kind, even if these individuals belong to people at war with us; and this is the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him). Shaykh Abdullah Azzam says in his commentary, "In the Shade of Surah al-Tawbah":

"The Negus [ruler of Abyssinia] was a Kafir, and Abu Jahl was a Kafir, but the Messenger (peace be upon him) said [to his Companions who were being persecuted], 'Go to this man [i.e Negus, to seek refuge with him] for no one is wronged under his rule.' To who? To the Negus, who was a Christian."

"Al-Mut'im Bin Adee' [A Quyarshi who died a Mushrik] sheltered the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) when he returned from at-Taa'if. So the Messenger was under his protection, and that's why on the battle of Badr, when he captured 70 Qurayshis, he said, "If al-Mut'im Bin Adee had been alive today and interceded with me on behalf of these foul smelling people, I would have let them go for his sake.' [Bukhari] Thus the Muslim's dealings with the Kafir or non-Muslim must be commensurate with the degree of his hurting and offending the Islamic Da'wah (call)."
And he says in "Jihad: Fiqh and Ijtihad":

“So the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was only able to enter Makkah under the protection of al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee, and the Messenger didn’t forget this noble deed, because on the day of the battle of Badr after taking the seventy captives, he said, ‘If al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee had been alive today and interceded with me on behalf of these foul-smelling people, I would have let them go for his sake.’ In other words, had al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee still been alive and asked me to  release these captives, I would have let them go for his sake to repay the debt, because Islam remembers favors, and Islam is made up of fulfillment of dues and debts, made up of humanity and philanthropy, and made up of good and positive interactions.”

And Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (may Allah preserve him) says in his book “al-Risaalah al-Thalaatheeniyah fit-Tahdheer min al-Guloo’ fit-Takfeer”:

“Similarly, thanking them [i.e. unbelievers or apostates] by words or deeds, such as returning the favor they have done to the Muslim in kind: there is no sin in this either. The evidence for the first [i.e. thanking them verbally] is the general nature of the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), ‘He who doesn’t thank the people doesn’t thank Allah.’ (Narrated by Abu Dawud and al-Tirmidhi, who declared it authentic."

“As for the second [i.e. thanking them with actions], its evidence is in the statement of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in reference to the captives of Badr, ‘If al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee had been alive today and interceded with me on behalf of these foul-smelling people, I would have let them go for his sake.’ (Narrated by Al-Bukhari from Jubair bin Mut’im)"

“This was because al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee was one of the noblemen of Quraish, and had rendered a service to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as he had given him safe haven when he returned from al-Taa’if where he had gone to give Da’wah to the tribe of Thaqeef. Al-Mut’im was also one of those who worked for the annulment and tearing up of the document that Quraish drew up against Banu Hashim [i.e the document which placed a ban on Banu Hashim]; and he died about seven months before Badr.

“So the statement of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was a sort of reward to al-Mut’im and an expression of thanks for his charity and kindness […]

“Similar to this is his (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibiting the killing of Abu al-Bakhtari bin Hisham in the battle of Badr despite him being a Kaafir (unbeliever) with no covenant of security, due to his having refrained from harming him and the kindness he showed in striving to annul the document of oppression.

“Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah mentioned this in al-Saarim al-Maslool pg. 163 and also mentioned the Hadeeth of al-Mut’im, and then said, ‘He (peace and bless­ings of Allah be upon him) would reward the one who was kind to him for his kindness, even if he was a Kaafir (unbeliever).”

This is why I say it is not only wrong from a political perspective but also contrary to the Prophetic Sunnah to treat an individual who is known (as in the case of Alan Henning) to be sympathetic towards Islam or Muslims or their causes the same way we would treat a belligerent, even if this individual be a British or American unbeliever or even an Israeli, and even if he is not known to have an explicit covenant of security with the Muslims; so what if it is apparent that such a covenant with him exists, as in the case of Henning?! There is no doubt that to kill him then is not simply a contradiction of the Sunnah or a political gaffe, but is in fact a major sin with a punishment which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) warned us about in his statement, “Whoever kills a Mu’aahad (Kaafir with a covenant of security or safe-conduct) won’t smell the fragrance of Paradise, although its fragrance is perceptible at the distance of a 40-year march.” (Related by al-Bukhari) That is to say, the person who kills a Kaafir despite him having a covenant won’t enter Paradise nor even come close to entering Paradise.


Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi says in an article with a publishing date of September 18, 2014 entitled “The Refutation and Disavowal Against He Who Kidnaps or Kills Relief Workers Even if They Are Unbelievers”:

“A few days ago, the [Islamic] State organization slaughtered a British hostage who the press said was working in the field of relief. Regard­less of the credibility of those reports, the slaughterers threatened in the same video clip to slaughter another Briton named Alan Henning, and the information we have received confirms that this man was a volun­teer driver in a humanitarian convoy sent by a charitable foundation in Britain called al-Fatihah, which had already sent several humanitarian convoys loaded with medicines and other relief supplies for the Syrian people. We have seen pictures of the work this relief foundation does and this man’s work with it, and Qatada, son of Shaykh Abu Qatada al-Filisteeni […], informed me that his father had written to the State organization eight months ago asking them to release this man, which not only didn’t happen, they even denied that he was in their custody! Then we were surprised by their threat to slaughter this man in the video in which the first Briton was slaughtered.

Qatada also mentioned to me that this foundation in whose convoy the Briton came is run by a Muslim who he knows and who is now under arrest in Britain because of his sending these sorts of caravans.

So we say to the State group: Fear Allah in respect to the Muslims, and fear Allah in respect to Jihad and the Mujahideen. The issue isn’t a Briton or defense of Britain as some fools make it out to be. We are not siding with Britain or defending it, for Britain has killed thousands of Muslims and wronged millions more with its planting of the Jewish entity in the heart of the Muslim lands. Rather, the issue is one of defending Islam and preventing the Jihad from being defaced and defamed.

“The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, ‘The Muslims’ blood is equal, and the protection accorded by (even) the lowest among them (i.e. in social standing) is binding on all of them, and they are as one against those other than them.’ This man came as a volunteer with an aid foundation run by Muslims, so these Muslims should be respected, and their giving protection to this man who came to aid and relieve the Syrian people should be respected. He was given a covenant of security by the Muslims who he came with, and he was also given a covenant of security by the Muslims in the Levant whose territories he entered with their permission, so is it logical that his reward be kidnapping and slaughter?! Even though he came to help the Muslims and give them relief, which is sufficient for him to be received with thanks, not with slaughter and the oppression which Allah does not like! […]

“This is a peaceful man helping the Muslims who has nothing to do with the oppression and aggression the state he belongs to is committing against the Muslims, so they [i.e. those holding him] and all Muslims must differentiate between—on one hand—people like him who haven’t come to trespass against the Muslims and—on the other hand—the trespassers, just as our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) differentiated between the trespasser and bellig­erent ‘Uqbah bin Abi Mu’eet and his ilk and the helper and provider of relief al-Mut’im bin ‘Adee, although both men were polytheist idol-worshippers.

“As for he who doesn’t distinguish in his Jihad between this and that and treats everyone alike, he is not one of the Mujahideen. No, by Allah, he is not one of the Mujahideen! Rather, he is one of the enemies of Jihad who are working to defame it and repel people from it, whether he realizes it or not.”

To sum up then, Alan Henning didn’t go to Syria as a soldier or a spy. He went to Syria as a member of a Muslim aid convoy to distribute relief supplies to displaced and needy Syrians. But rather than thank him, some interlopers rewarded him by first kidnapping him and then slaugh­tering him on camera, in spite of the appeals from hundreds of ‘Ulama, Mujahideen and other Muslims to spare him, appeals such as the one made by Shaykh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi both in the article I just quoted from as well as in a subsequent article of his published on September 23, 2014 entitled “O Allah, Grant Victory to the Mujahideen, Deliver the Weak and Oppressed Muslims and Defeat the Crusaders and Apostates.” As for us in al-Qa’eda, we have already made our position clear on the issue of how Mujahi­deen should treat those who help Muslims or sympathize with their causes, regardless of whether they have been given explicit covenants of security or not; and this position is spelled out in Shaykh Ayman’s General Guidelines for Jihadi Work, which was released to the public in September 2013. And it was on the basis of these guidelines and the basis of Islamic principles that the brothers in An-Nusra Front (al-Qa’eda’s branch in Syria) sought the release of Henning soon after his kidnapping, but regrettably, their appeals—like the rest—fell on deaf ears.

And here another difference between the actions of the group behind his killing on one hand and Islamic precepts and precedents on the other becomes evident. The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was prepared to release 70 captive infidel warriors who had been captured on the battlefield after engaging in armed combat with the Muslims if one infidel had interceded on their behalf. In contrast, this group arrogantly refused to release one noncom­batant unbeliever despite the hundreds and even thousands of appeals for his release by Mujahi­deen, ‘Ulama and other Muslims.

[Page 42-46, Resurgence]