The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

Spying is investigating information. It is said in the language “spied the news and spying it (is) investigating regarding it” and from it is the spy. If the man investigates information then he has spied it and he is a spy, whether he investigates open or hidden information. It is not a condition in investigating information that it be hidden i.e. secret so that it is spying; rather spying is investigating news whether secret or open i.e. secret and non-secret. Whereas if he sees things naturally without investigation and without his action being investigation of news, or collection of information to publish it or is concerned with news, all this is not spying as long at it is not investigating news and investigating news is not part of his actions. Even if he follows news in these situations, it is not spying because investigating of information which is spying is only where following and scrutinising it is for the objective of examining it. As for the one who follows information to collect it, he does not scrutinize it for the objective of examining it but rather he collects it to publish it to the people. Accordingly it is not said about the one who follows news and collects it like the correspondents of gazettes and news agencies that they are spies, except if their work is spying and they take the correspondence of gazettes and agencies as a tool. In this situation he is a spy not because of his being a correspondent who is following the news but rather because his work is spying and he takes correspondence as a tool for cover as is the situation with many correspondents and particularly the belligerent disbelievers among them. As for the officers of investigative departments and the investigative office and their like who investigate news, they are spies because their work is spying.

This is the reality of spying and the reality of the spy. As for the rule of spying, it differs according to those spied upon. If it is spying upon Muslims or dhimmis who are citizens like Muslims, then it is haram and not allowed. If it is spying upon belligerent disbelievers, whether they are belligerent in actual fact or by rule, this is allowed for Muslims and obligatory upon the Khalifah. As for spying upon Muslims and citizens of the Islamic State being haram, this is established by the Qur’an explicitly. Allah (swt) said:

So Allah prohibited spying in the ayah. This prohibition is general covering all spying whether it is spying for himself or anyone, whether it is for the State or individuals or groups, and whether the one performing it i.e. the spying is the ruler or the ruled. The speech is general covering everything applying upon it that it is spying.

Here a question arises: Is it allowed for the Muslim to work as an officer in an inquiry department or an investigative department or other departments whose work, or some of it, is spying? The response depends. If it is an office to spy upon Muslims or dhimmmis who are citizens like Muslims, then it is haram by the explicit Qur’anic text. It is prevented for the dhimmi like it is prevented for the Muslim as the dhimmi in Dar al-Islam is addressed to implement the Islamic rules upon himself except what relates to creeds and worships, and this is not part of that. If the office is spying upon belligerent disbelievers who enter our lands from the ones who have been granted security or the ones under covenant, then it is allowed as it is allowed to spy upon belligerent disbelievers whether they are belligerent in practice or by the rule and whether they are in their lands or ours. Accordingly the existence of inquiry or investigative departments and their like is not haram but obligatory and what is prohibited (haram) in them is spying upon Muslims or dhimmis who are citizens of Muslims. It is not allowed for the State to have a department to spy upon Muslims and the rest of the citizens; rather this is forbidden against them. Nor is it said that the State’s interest requires knowing the citizens’ information so as to expose conspiracies and lead to criminals because the State can know this via the method of police and night patrol not via the method of spying. Just because the mind sees benefit or not in something it is not a reason for forbiddance or allowance; only what the Shar’a sees as benefit is benefit. When the Qur’anic ayat come explicitly forbidding anything there remains no place for discussion whether there is benefit in it to reason it into making it halal, as there is no value in that in front of the explicit Qur’anic text. The Qur’an says: “Do not spy” meaning prohibition of spying, and there is no way to understand other than what the ayah indicates and the clear meaning of its words. There came no evidence specifying the generality of this ayah or excluding something from it, so it remains in its generality covering all spying so all spying upon the citizens is haram.

This is in relation to spying upon Muslims or dhimmis who are citizens like Muslims. As for Muslims and dhimmis spying upon belligerent disbelievers, whether they are belligerents in practice or rule, this is excluded from the generality of the ayah due to the ahadith specifying the forbiddance of spying on non-belligerent disbelievers. As for belligerent disbelievers, spying upon them is allowed for Muslims and obligatory upon the Muslims’ Khalifah i.e. upon the State. It came in the Sirah of ibn Hisham that the Prophet (saw) sent Abdullah bin Jahsh and sent with him a company of eight Muhajireen. He wrote for him a book and commanded him not to look into it until he travels two days then looks into it and executes what he was commanded without compelling any of his companions. When Abdullah bin Jahsh travelled two days, he opened the book and looked into it. It said in it:

In this book the Messenger (saw) command Abdullah bin Jahsh to spy for him upon Quraysh and to inform him of their news. However he gave a choice to his companions whether to travel or not; as for him (Abdullah), it was obliged upon him to execute the operation. So the Messenger had requested all to perform spying but obliged Abdullah and gave a choice to the rest. This is evidence that the request in relation to the leader of a group is a decisive request, and in relation to the rest together with him it is an indecisive request. It is also evidence that spying by Muslims upon the enemy is allowed. Spying upon the enemy is from the matters which the Islamic army cannot do without. It is not possible to accomplish the formation of an army for war without there being spies for it upon the enemy, so the presence of spying in the army becomes obligatory upon the State from the category (min bab) of

This is the rule of spying in relation to it being haram or allowed or obligatory. As for the rule on punishing the spy who spies for the belligerent disbelievers, this differs in relation to the citizenship of the spy and his deen. As for the belligerent disbeliever when he is a spy, his rule is killing as one decisive word and there is no rule for him other than that. He is killed merely upon knowing he is a spy i.e. upon mere proving that he is a spy. This is due to what Al-Bukhari narrated from Salamah bin Al-Akwa’ who said:

And in Muslim it has been narrated from Ikrimah with the words:

And in the narration of Abu Nu’aym in Al-Mustakhraj via the way of Yahya bin Al-Hamani from Abu Al-‘Umays

The is explicit in that the Messenger (saw) on the basis of merely being established before him that he is a spy said

This is a connotation that the request is a decisive request. So its rule becomes killing as one decisive word and it is general for all belligerent disbelievers whether he is under a covenant or with a pledge of security or other than a mu’ahid or musta’man. All are belligerent disbelievers whose rule is to be killed if they are spies.

As for the dhimmi disbelievers when he is a spy, then it is looked into. If it was made a condition when he entered into the dhimma that he should not spy and if he spied he will be killed, then the condition is acted upon. So if he became a spy, he is killed according to the condition. However, if that is not made a condition upon him then it is allowed for the Khalifah to make killing as his punishment so he is killed if he becomes a spy due to what Ahmad narrated from Furrat bin Hayyan

This is explicit that the Messenger commanded the killing of a dhimmi spy. However this is allowed for the Imam and not obligatory upon him as is the case when the spy if he is a belligerent disbeliever. The evidence that the killing of a dhimmi spy by the State is allowed and not obligatory is that the hadith is not associated with a connotation indicating decisiveness so it is an indecisive request. There is a connotation which indicates the non-decisiveness in the request which is that the text of the hadith indicates that the Messenger (saw) did not hasten to kill Furrat after the mere knowledge that he is a spy whereas the belligerent disbeliever mentioned in the hadith of Salama bin Al-Akwa’, the Prophet had commanded his killing upon it being merely established before him that he is a spy and he said to the Muslims: “Seek him and kill him.” The evidence that he did not hasten to kill him is that the Messenger (saw) used to know him, which appears in the saying of the hadith “he was a dhimmi and he was a spy” i.e. he was known, and (also) the saying of the Messenger “of them is Furrat bin Hayyan.” In addition to that, the Messenger said in the matter of the belligerent disbeliever: “Seek him and kill him” whereas in the matter of Furrat bin Hayyan he commanded his killing but did not request the Muslims to seek him. It is clear therein the distinction between both of them in that the request to kill the belligerent is a decisive request and the request to kill the dhimmi is an indecisive request which indicates the permissibility of killing the dhimmi spy and the permissibility of not killing him.

As for the Muslim spy who spies for the enemy upon Muslims and dhimmis, he is not killed because the Messenger (saw) commanded the killing of the dhimmi but when it was established before him that he had embraced Islam and became a Muslim he abstained from him. Since he had commanded the killing of Furrat bin Hayyan who was a dhimmi and a spy but when they said: O Messenger of Allah, he claims he is a Muslim, he said:

So the reason (‘illah) abstaining from killing him is his becoming a Muslim. Al-Bukhari narrated from Ali bin Abu Talib (ra) said:

It was established in this hadith about Hatib that he was a spy against the Muslims and the Messenger did not kill him, which indicates that the Muslim spy is not killed. One should not say that the rule is specific to the people of Badr because the hadith is reasoned (mu’allil) on his being of the people of Badr. This should not be said became even if the text came with what requires reasoning and its context was in a way that reasoning is understood from it; nevertheless (in) the hadith of Ahmad about Furrat bin Hayyan, killing was lifted from him because he became a Muslim after he was a dhimmi which invalidates the reasoning of this hadith and makes it a description of a reality because Furrat bin Hayyan was not from the people of Badr. Nor should one say that the hadith of Furrat bin Hayyan in Abu Dawud has Abu Hammam Ad-Dalal Muhammad bin Muhabbib in its chain and his hadith are not considered as proofs, and he is narrating from Sufyan Ath-Thawri. One should not say this because Ahmad has narrated this hadith from Sufyan bin Bushr bin As-Sirri Al-Basri, and he is from those whom Al-Bukhari and Muslim agreed to consider as proof with his hadith. So the hadith is established and is extrapolated upon, and it is an evidence that the Muslim spy is not killed but is punished with imprisonment or something else according to the view of the judge or Khalifah.

All this is about the spying upon Muslims and dhimmis for the belligerent disbeliever enemy. As for spying upon Muslims (but) not for the enemy i.e. not for the belligerent disbeliever, rather for the sake of spying or for Muslims or the State; although it is haram the Shar’a has not specified a specific punishment for this sin so its punishment becomes a discretionary punishment (ta’zeer).