The best of people are those of my era, then those after, then those after them

Friendship and cordial relations with belligerent infidels are unlawful and forbidden. Whoever maintains such relationships with them is misguided, unjust, and deserving of severe punishment. It is also forbidden to have social interactions, such as sitting and associating with those who mock the Muslim faith. Severing economic and social ties with mischief-makers is not an injustice, but rather a vital command of Islamic law and the example of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ).

Question: What do the scholars of Islam say regarding the following issue: A person, along with a group, becomes an apostate by publicly slaughtering an animal in the name of a false prophet, thereby unanimously being declared outside the fold of Islam by the Muslim community, with their apostasy being certain and beyond doubt. Additionally, the following reasons also apply:

(1) They wear the cloak of Islam to attack Muslim beliefs and conspire against the entire Muslim world and community.

(2) They inflict all kinds of harm, physical and financial, on Muslims to the best of their abilities.

(3) Their growing material power and financial resources are entirely dependent on exploiting Muslims, with their factories and industries being run by Muslims, and they are trying to occupy all key positions and control economic resources in an Islamic country.

(4) They have ties with anti-Islamic external powers, Jewish and Christian governments, and the anti-Islam government of India. In short, their behavior poses serious dangers to Muslims from a religious, economic, financial, and social perspective, and their actions can even lead to the dangers of rebellion and revolution in an Islamic state.

(5) It is not expected that the government or at the government level, any measures will be taken to save the country and the nation from this tribulation (fitnah), nor is it hoped that the shariah punishment they deserve will be implemented. In such circumstances, what should the helpless Muslims do to stop this fitnah, and what is their shariah duty in this regard? Is there any Islamic justification or obligation for the following:

(a) The Islamic community severs fraternal ties with this individual or group.

(b) They are not greeted, nor is there any social interaction, sitting, or standing together, nor participation in weddings or condolences, but rather a complete social boycott.

(c) Is it permissible to trade, lend, or buy and sell with them?

(d) Should their factories and industries be boycotted economically?

(e) Is it permissible to go to their educational institutions, hotels, or restaurants?

(f) Should they be treated with tolerance or not?

(g) Should the products of their factories and industries be used or not? In short, is it permissible to impose a complete social boycott or embargo on them? Do all Muslims also have the right, according to Islamic law, to boycott them in order to guide them to the right path, when there is no other means of reform available?

Answer: Undoubtedly, it is proven by the categorical revelation of the Quran, the widely transmitted hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ), and the categorical consensus of the Ummah of Muhammad that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is the final prophet, and no prophet can come after him. Therefore, anyone who claims prophethood after the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) is an infidel and completely outside the fold of Islam. And anyone who confirms this claimant of prophethood and considers him a leader and guide is also an infidel, apostate, and outside the fold of Islam.

If, along with this apostasy and infidelity, one of the reasons mentioned earlier is also present, then according to the Quran, Hadith, and Islamic jurisprudence, they are not deserving of Islamic brotherhood or sympathy. It is obligatory for Muslims to sever all ties with them, including greetings, conversations, sitting together, and transactions. It is not permissible to establish any relationship or connection with them that implies respect or provides them with power or comfort.

There are numerous Quranic verses, Hadith, and jurisprudential details regarding the obligation to sever ties with belligerent infidels and enemies of Islam. It should be clear that belligerent infidels who are at war with Muslims, harm them, distort Islamic terminology, and mock Islam, and who strive to disperse the collective power of Muslims, Islam commands to deal with them in the harshest manner. Tolerance is only permitted with those infidels who are not belligerent or rebellious; otherwise, the command is to deal harshly with belligerent infidels.

Furthermore, if Muslims commit a despicable sin, Islamic law and the Prophet's tradition command cutting off ties with them, including greetings, conversations, and sitting together, as a form of punishment and discipline. This is even more applicable to belligerent infidels.

In this regard, it is first and foremost the duty of the Islamic government to impose the shar'i punishment on these apostates, as stated in the Quran: "Kill them wherever you find them" (2:191), and to suppress this fitnah and protect Islam and the Muslim community from its harm. This is how the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) and the Rightly Guided Caliphs dealt with apostates and rebellious individuals.

However, if the Muslim government fails to punish such individuals or if it is not expected to do so, then it becomes the duty of the Muslim community to decide on a punishment that is within their authority.

In short, if an individual or group is guilty of apostasy, belligerence, rebellion, wickedness, hypocrisy, harming Muslims, conspiring with Jews, Christians, and Hindus, and other such crimes, then it is not only permissible but also obligatory to boycott or cut off ties with them.

If the Muslim community fails to take collective action to suppress this fitnah, even through a mild measure like boycott, they will be held accountable before Allah.

This boycott is not an act of injustice, but rather it is in accordance with Islamic justice and fairness. Its purpose is to protect Muslims from their harm and to safeguard their community from apostasy and hypocrisy. At the same time, it also serves as a means of discipline and punishment for these belligerent individuals, with the hope that they will reform and abandon their infidelity and hypocrisy, and instead accept faith and Islam, thereby saving themselves from eternal punishment and hellfire. If the Muslim community fails to take action against them, they will continue to persist in their current state, and thus become deserving of eternal punishment.

The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) initially adopted this approach when he arrived in Medina, attacking the caravans of the infidels of Mecca and seizing their wealth, in order to deprive them of the power and glory they derived from their wealth, which they used to harm and oppose Muslims. Before resorting to killing and jihad with the sword, the Prophet (ﷺ) employed these measures of boycott and economic strangulation to weaken the enemy's military capabilities and prevent them from dying in a state of infidelity.

The objective of this action was to seize their wealth and thereby save their lives, as seizing their wealth was better than taking their lives. Furthermore, this measure also provided an opportunity for the infidels of Mecca to reflect and consider the truth, so that they might accept the blessing of faith and become deserving of eternal blessings, and thus escape eternal punishment.

However, when this measure failed to reform the infidels' and polytheists' obstinacy, Allah commanded jihad with the sword to purify the earth of their evil and corruption. Allah then pitted the Muslims against the infidels' military organization instead of their trade caravans.

The Prophet's initial approach provides guidance to the Muslim community that in certain circumstances, when jihad with the sword is not possible, a lesser (اقل) measure can be taken, which is to boycott the belligerent infidels economically and even seize their wealth. However, it is clear that ordinary Muslims are neither capable of jihad with the sword nor authorized to seize wealth. In such cases, the only option available to them is to sever all ties with these harmful infidels and isolate them from society.

When a part of the human body becomes so corrupted that it threatens to harm the entire body and put life at risk, it is not wise to keep it attached, but rather to cut it off. This is the consensus of all wise men, intellectuals, and physicians. Moreover, when these harmful infidels are sucking the blood of Muslims and, having gained power, are trying to erase Muslims from the face of the earth, a complete economic boycott or embargo is considered an important defensive measure and is employed as a political tactic.

However, for Muslims, this is not a political tactic, but rather a sacred religious duty, following the example of the Prophet (ﷺ) and the tradition of the Messenger (ﷺ). The honor of Islam does not tolerate, even for a moment, maintaining any relationship or connection with the enemies of Islam and the Muslim community. We will now present Quranic verses, Hadith, and quotes from the jurists of the Muslim community that clearly establish the ruling of boycott.

(1) (اذا سمعتم ايات الله يفكر بها يستهزا بها فلا تقعدوا معهم) 

When you see that Allah's verses are being denied and ridiculed, then abandon sitting and associating with them.

(2) (واذا رأيت الذين يخرصون في اياتنا فاعرض عنهم:)

And when you see those who engage in mockery of Our verses, then turn away from them.

Under this verse, Hafiz al-Hadith Imam Abubakr Jassas al-Razi (رحمہ اللہ) writes that this verse indicates that it is obligatory for us Muslims to sever ties with atheists and all infidels if we cannot stop them from their infidelity, polytheism, and uttering falsehoods about Allah. If we cannot prevent them, then we should abandon sitting and associating with them.

(3) (ياايها الذين امنوا لا تتخذوا اليهود والنصاري اولياء:)

O you who believe, do not take the Jews and Christians as friends.

Under this verse, Hafiz al-Hadith Imam Abubakr Jassas al-Razi (رحمہ اللہ) writes that this verse indicates that an infidel cannot be a friend or ally of a Muslim, neither in transactions nor in aid and cooperation. It also makes clear that it is obligatory to renounce and show enmity towards infidels, because friendship is the opposite of enmity. Since we are commanded to show enmity towards the Jews and Christians due to their disbelief, the same applies to other infidels as well, as all disbelievers belong to the same community.

(4) (سورة الممتحنه:)

Surah Al-Mumtahanah: The theme of this surah is the emphasis on cutting off ties with infidels. In this surah, there is a strong prohibition against befriending and associating with disbelievers, even if they are relatives or kin. It is stated that on the Day of Judgment, these relationships will be of no benefit, and those who continue to befriend and associate with disbelievers will be considered astray from the right path and unjust.

(5) (لا تجدقو ما يؤمنون باللّٰه واليوم الآخر يوادون من هاداللّٰه و رسوله ولو كانو اباءھم او اخوانهم او عشيرتهم:)

You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who oppose Allah and His Messenger(ﷺ), even if they were their fathers, their sons, their brothers, or their kindred.

Further, in this noble verse, Muslims who, despite being relatives, sever ties with belligerent infidels are called true believers. They have been given the glad tidings of Paradise and Allah's pleasure, and have been honored with the title of Hizbullah (حزب اللہ). This makes it clear that maintaining ties with enemies of Allah and the Messenger, associating with them, and providing them with any kind of support is not the work of a believer.

My respected readers, these few verses have been mentioned as examples, but there are countless other verses that convey the same message. Now, let us consider a few Hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ):

(1) In a Hadith narrated by Sayyidna Samurah bin Jundub (رضی اللہ عنہ) in Jami' Tirmidhi, Volume: 1, Page: 195, it is stated that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) commanded that Muslims should not reside in the same place as polytheists and infidels, lest they become like them.

(2) In another Hadith narrated by Sayyidna Jarir bin Abdullah al-Bajali (رضی اللہ عنہ) in Tirmidhi, Volume: 1, Page: 193, the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) declared his (ﷺ) disavowal from every Muslim who resides among belligerent infidels.

(3) In a Hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari, there is a mention of eight or nine individuals from the tribes of 'Ukl' (عکل) and 'Uraynah' (عرینہ) who apostatized. After their capture, the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) ordered that their hands and feet be cut off, and hot iron rods be inserted into their eyes. They were then left to die on the rocks of Medina. They would ask for water, but it was not given to them. In one narration, it is stated that they would lick the ground due to thirst, but were not allowed to drink water.

Imam al-Nawawi (رحمہ اللہ) writes in the commentary of this Hadith that it is clear that there is no respect for a belligerent apostate, even in providing them with water. Therefore, if a person has only enough water for ablution, they are not allowed to give it to the apostate, even if they are dying of thirst. Instead, they should perform ablution and pray.

(Fath al-Bari, Volume: 1, Page: 241).

(4) During the Battle of Tabuk, three prominent Companions, Sayyidna Ka'ab bin Malik (رضی اللہ عنہ), Sayyidna Bilal bin Umayyah (رضی اللہ عنہ) and Sayyidna Murarah bin Rabi' (رضی اللہ عنہ), were severely punished for not participating in the battle. A heavenly decree was issued that all ties with them be severed, and a complete boycott be implemented. No one was allowed to greet them or speak to them, and even their wives were ordered to separate from them and not cook for them. These individuals became despondent and the vast earth became constricted for them. This state of affairs continued for fifty days, until Allah finally accepted their repentance and forgave them.

Qazi Abu Bakr Ibn-ul-'Arabi (رحمہ اللہ) writes that this incident proves that the Imam has the authority to prohibit people from interacting with a sinful individual as a means of discipline. 

(Ahkam-ul-Qur'an, Volume: 2, Page: 1026)

Hafiz Ibn Hajar (رحمہ اللہ) writes in Fath Al-Bari that this incident establishes that it is permissible to withhold greetings from a sinful individual and to sever ties with them for more than three days.

The incident of Sayyidna Ka'ab bin Malik (رضی اللہ عنہ) and his companions is mentioned in Surah al-Tawbah of the Quran, and its details are found in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and all six authentic Hadith collections.

Imam Abu Dawud (رحمہ اللہ) has dedicated several chapters in his book Sunan Abu Dawud to the topic of boycotting and severing ties with innovators and those who oppose the Sunnah. 

(Volume: 2, Page: 276)

One of the chapters is titled ''Boycotting and harboring animosity towards innovators'' (Volume: 2, Page: 276), and another is titled ''Withholding greetings and conversation from innovators'' (Volume: 2, Page: 276).

In Sunan Abu Dawud, there is a Hadith that Sayyiduna 'Ammar bin Yasir (may Allah be pleased with him) had applied henna (a reddish-brown dye) to his hair, and the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) did not respond to his greeting.

Consider this! If such a minor act of disobedience warranted this punishment, how can it be permissible to interact with, greet, or do business with a renegade, harmful, and belligerent infidel?

Imam Khatibi (رحمہ اللہ) writes in Ma'alim al-Sunan (Volume: 4, Page: 296) that the incident of Ka'ab bin Malik (رضی اللہ عنہ) proves that it is permissible to sever ties with Muslims as well, due to religious reasons, without any time limit, until they repent.

(5) In Musnad Ahmad and Sunan Abu Dawud, there is a Hadith narrated by Sayyidna Ibn 'Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) said, ''Those who deny the decree of Allah are the Magians of this Ummah. Do not visit them when they are sick, and do not perform their funeral prayers when they die.'' 

(Sunan Abu Dawud, Volume: 2, Page: 288).

(6) In another Hadith, it is stated, ''Do not sit with those who deny the decree of Allah, and do not speak to them.''

(7) In Sunan Kubra al-Bayhaqi, it is narrated from Sayyidna Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) ordered him to dry up the wells of Badr, and in another narration, it is stated that all the wells should be dried up except one that would be useful during the battle.

In Sahih Bukhari, it is narrated that Sayyidna Ali (رضی اللہ عنہ) had some heretics brought before him, and he burned them at the stake. When Sayyidna Ibn Abbas (رضی اللہ عنہ) was informed about this, he said that if he were present, he would not have burned them, because the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) had forbidden inflicting Allah's punishment on anyone. Instead, he would have killed them, because the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) had said, (من بدل دينه فاقتلوه:) ''Whoever changes his religion, kill him.''

In Sahih Bukhari, it is also narrated from Sayyidna Sa'ad bin Jathamah (رضی اللہ عنہ) that the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) was asked about the polytheists being attacked at night, and women and children being killed. The Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) replied, ''They are from among them.''

In any case, these are the instructions of the Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ). After his time, during the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, the same approach was followed. The declaration of jihad against those who refused to pay zakat by Sayyidna Abu Bakr (رضی اللہ عنہ) is recorded in Bukhari and Muslim.

The treatment meted out to Musaylimah al-Kazab, Aswad al-'Ansi, Tulayhah al-Asadi, and their followers is well-known to even a casual student of Hadith and history.

During the era of Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ), a person Subaygh Iraqi (صبیغ عراقی) began to interpret the verses of the Quran in a way that was influenced by his personal desires and created doubts in the minds of Muslims. This person was in the army and had gone from Iraq to Egypt, where he was brought before Sayyidna Umru bin Al-'Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ), the governor of Egypt. Sayyidna Umru bin Al-'Aas (رضی اللہ عنہ) sent him to Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) in Medina and informed him about the situation. Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) did not bother to listen to his arguments or engage in a debate with him. Instead, he considered it necessary to treat him severely and immediately had fresh palm branches brought and began to beat him mercilessly with his own hands, until he started bleeding. The man cried out, ''O Amir al-Mu'minin, you want to kill me! Have mercy and finish me off with a sword, or if you only want to cure my madness, I assure you that the evil spirit has been exorcised.'' Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) then released him and kept him in Medina for a few days before sending him back to Iraq. He also wrote to Sayyidna Abu Musa Ash'ari (رضی اللہ عنہ) that no Muslim should sit with him.

As a result of this boycott, the man's life became miserable, and he became despondent. Sayyidna Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (رضی اللہ عنہ) then wrote to Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) that the man's condition had improved, and only then did Sayyidna Umar (رضی اللہ عنہ) permit people to sit with him again.Now, let's look at some statements from Fiqah:

(1) Alamah Dardir Maliki (رحمہ اللہ) writes in Sharh-e-Kabir, Volume: 4, Page: 299, regarding the rules for rebels, that their food and water should be cut off, unless there are women and children among them.

(2) Regarding a murderer who seeks refuge in the sacred city of Mecca, Abu Bakr al-Jassas writes in Ahkam al-Qur'an, Volume: 2, Page: 21, that according to Imam Abu Hanifah (رحمہ اللہ), Imam Abu Yusuf (رحمہ اللہ), Imam Zufar (رحمہ اللہ), and Hasan bin Ziyad (رحمہ اللہ), if someone commits murder outside the sacred city and then ente 

(Firstly) The infidel, and if the infidel is a harbi (someone who is at war with Muslims), then they deserve to be killed or taken as a slave, and this is the ultimate humiliation.

(Secondly) The innovator who invites others to their innovation, if their innovation reaches the level of kufr, then their situation is worse than that of a Zimmi (a non-Muslim living under Muslim rule) because neither tax (jizya) can be taken from them nor can they be given the status of a dhimmi. And if the innovation is not of the kind that would make them a kafir, then in the sight of Allah, their case is lighter than that of a kafir, but they will be rebuked more severely than a kafir because the harm caused by a kafir is not contagious, since Muslims consider a kafir to be a straightforward kafir, and therefore they will not pay attention to their words, etc.

In Radd-ul-Mukhtar, Volume: 4, Page: 244, it is written regarding the Qaramitah (a sect considered to be heretics) that according to the four schools of thought, it is not permissible to allow them to reside in Islamic countries, neither by taking jizya from them nor without it, nor is it permissible to marry them, nor is their slaughtered animal halal. In short, the term heretic (Zindeq), hypocrite (Munafiq), and atheist (Mulhid) applies fully to them. And it is clear that despite their recitation of the kalimah, they are not considered apostates because they do not have faith, and their outward profession of Islam is valid until they openly renounce these matters that are contrary to Islam. Because they already claim to be Muslims and recite the shahadtain, (but despite this, they are confirmed disbelievers and infidels). And if such people are caught, their repentance is not accepted at all.

In the reliable book of Hanafi Fiqh, Mueen-ul-Ahkam, Volume: 3, Page: 75, it is written in a separate chapter on Ta'zir that Ta'zir is not limited to a specific act or statement. For example, the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) had imposed Ta'zir on three individuals who had stayed behind during the Battle of Tabuk, and their story is mentioned in the Quran. For 50 days, no one was allowed to talk to them, and their famous story is mentioned in the Sahih Sittah.

The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) also imposed the punishment of exile, such as when he ordered the eunuchs to be expelled from Medina and banished from the city.

Similarly, the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) also imposed various forms of Ta'zir, some of which are mentioned in the books of Hadith. Some of these are accepted by our scholars, while others were practiced by other Imams.

For example, Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) imposed Muqatiah on a person named Sabegh, who used to ask about the interpretation of certain verses of the Quran, such as adh-Dhariyat (الذاریات), and would incite people to delve into the difficulties of the Quran. Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) had him beaten severely and exiled him to Basra or Kufa, and ordered that no one should talk to him until he repented.

When Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) saw a beggar who had more than enough food, he took the excess food from him and distributed it among the poor. He also ordered the destruction of a house where wine was being sold.

Sayyidna Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas (رضی اللہ عنہ) had started making judgments in his own home, separate from the people, so Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) had his house demolished.

Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) also confiscated a portion of the wealth of his governors and distributed it among the Muslims. He had Nasir bin Hijaj's head shaved and exiled him from Medina when women started composing poems about him, and there was a fear of discord (Fitnah).

A person had forged Sayyidna Umar Farooq's (رضی اللہ عنہ) seal and taken something from the Bait-ul-Maal. Sayyidna Umar Farooq (رضی اللہ عنہ) had him beaten with 100 lashes, and again with 100 lashes on the third day. Imam Malik (رحمہ اللہ) also accepted this, and his school of thought is that Ta'zir can exceed the limit of the prescribed punishment (Hadd).

The Prophet (ﷺ) had punished the individuals of the tribe of 'Uraynah' (their story is mentioned in the Sahih Hadith collections). Sayyiduna Abu Bakr Siddiq (رضی اللہ عنہ) consulted the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) regarding a person who was guilty of a shameful act. The Companions advised that he should be burned alive. Sayyidna Abu Bakr Siddiq (رضی اللہ عنہ) wrote to Sayyidna Khalid bin Walid (رضی اللہ عنہ) to carry out this punishment. Later, Sayyidna Abdullah bin Zubair (رضی اللہ عنہ) and Sayyidna Hisham bin Abdul Malik (رضی اللہ عنہ) also carried out this punishment during their respective caliphates.

Sayyidna Abu Bakr Siddiq (رضی اللہ عنہ) had also burned alive a group of apostates.

On the day of the Battle of Khaybar, the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered the destruction of the cooking pots in which the flesh of donkeys had been cooked. Later, the Companions of the Prophet (ﷺ) asked him if they could wash the pots and use them, and he gave them permission. This incident proves the permissibility of both punishments, because it was not obligatory to destroy the cooking pots. There are many other similar incidents and well-known decisions that prove this point.

It is stated in Sharh Sair'-e-Kabir, Volume: 3, Page: 75, that there is no harm in Muslims selling grain, clothing, and other goods to infidels, but it is not permissible to sell them war materials, horses, or captives, whether they come with a peace treaty or without one. This is because these things would give them military strength against the Muslims, and it is not permissible for Muslims to do anything that would strengthen the infidels against them.

This reason is not found in other types of goods, but this ruling applies when the Muslims have not besieged any of their fortresses. However, when the Muslims have besieged one of their fortresses, it is not proper for them to sell grain, water, or anything that would help them continue to resist.

This is because the Muslims have besieged them in order to cut off their supplies and water, and to force them to surrender to the Muslims and come out in obedience to the command of Allah. Therefore, selling them grain or other goods would only strengthen their resistance, unlike the previous case.

This is because the people of the enemy territory can obtain the things they need to survive from their own land, and they do not need to buy them from the Muslims. However, the infidels who are besieged in a fortress and are under siege by the Muslims cannot buy the necessities of life from any Muslim.

Therefore, it is not permissible for any Muslim to sell them anything. If someone does this and the Imam becomes aware of it, the Imam should reprimand and discipline him, because he has committed a forbidden act.

*The following principles and conclusions come out clearly from the above-mentioned texts and the explanations of Islamic jurists* 

(1) Friendly relations with the infidels are illegal and forbidden. Whoever has such relations with them is misguided and unjust and deserves the worst punishment .

(2) Those infidels who make fun of the religion of Muslims, Social relations with them are forbidden.

(3) It is not permissible to live with those who disbelieving Muslims in their neighborhood.

(4) It is necessary to severely punish the apostate, there is no human sanctity for him, even if he is dying of thirst, he should not be given water.

(5) Those infidels, apostates and rebellious who are engaged in intrigues against the Muslims, buying, selling and dealing with them is unlawful, while it strengthens them, but paralyzes their offensive power by imposing an economic blockade on them. It is obligatory to do it.

(6) Economic boycott of miscreants is not cruelty, but the most important commandment of the Islamic Shari'ah and the Prophet Muhammad's (ﷺ) commandment.

(7) In addition to economic and social boycott, these punishments can also be given to apostates, traitors and miscreants, killing them, expelling them from the city, destroying their houses, crowding them, etc. 

(8) If the warriors, while taking action against the infidels and miscreants, their women and children become vulnerable, then it will not be taken care of.

(9) It is actually the duty of the Islamic government to take the above-mentioned measures against these people, but if the government neglects to do so, the Muslims themselves can take such measures that are within their jurisdiction, but they are not allowed to take any action that There is fear of disturbance in the peace of the country.

(10) Complete ban is not only permissible for infidels and miscreants, but in a serious matter, a Muslim can also be punished.

heesiyat

(11) A Heritic and an etheiast who apparently reads kalma but has evil beliefs internally and attaches Islamic texts to his beliefs through wrong interpretations, his condition is worse than the unbeliever and the apostate. Repentance is generally acceptable, but according to the Shami, heritic's, Islam is not valid, nor is his repentance acceptable unless he announces that he is absolved from all his false beliefs. .

My respeced readers:

Question on the status of the individual or party in the light of these principles, the Shariah order of economic, social and political boycott or complete social boycott becomes very clear.

(Fatawa Khatam-e- Nabwat, Volume: 2, Page: 459).