Mufti Usamah Dockrat warns that calls for South African Muslims to abandon “foreign” Muslims reflect a dangerous nationalism that has no place in Islam.
A disturbing message has recently circulated on social media suggesting that the “Muslims of South Africa” should make it clear to “foreign” Muslims that they will neither defend nor shelter them.
The message is short, but its implications are serious. Beyond its striking similarity to the rhetoric of the munāfiqūn in Madīnah after the migration of Rasūlullāh ﷺ, it reflects a number of dangerous assumptions that must be addressed clearly.
At its core, the message appears to have internalised un-Islamic ideas of nationalism, citizenship and loyalty to the modern nation-state.
A Muslim does not become more deserving of loyalty, protection and concern because he possesses a particular passport. Nor does another Muslim become less deserving because he lacks one.
Muslim brotherhood is not determined by borders, documents or legal categories created by the state. It is determined by īmān.
Nationalism is not an Islamic measure of loyalty
The first problem with the message is its framing. By dividing Muslims into “South African” and “foreign” Muslims in a way that affects who should be defended, sheltered or abandoned, the author places state identity above Islamic brotherhood.
This is not a minor issue. The Sharīʿah does not treat the life, safety and dignity of a Muslim as less sacred because he has crossed a border or lacks formal documentation. Nor does it allow Muslims to weigh the worth of another Muslim through the lens of nationality.
The Qurʾān and Sunnah establish bonds of loyalty, protection and concern between believers that are far deeper than modern political identities.
This does not mean Muslims should act recklessly or ignore consequences. It means that caution, strategy and wisdom cannot be turned into a justification for abandoning Muslims to harm.
Legal maxims cannot override established rulings
The second major problem is the careless use of qawāʿid fiqhiyyah, or Islamic legal maxims.
These maxims are rooted in the Sharīʿah and have their proper place. They assist the jurist in understanding, organising and applying the law. However, they are not standalone proofs that can be used to override clear texts or established aḥkām.
Shaykh Muṣṭafā Aḥmad al-Zarqā states: “Therefore, the Majallah did not permit judges, in their rulings, to restrict themselves to relying upon any of these universal maxims alone, without another specific or general text which, by its generality, includes the case being judged. This is because these universal maxims, despite their value and consideration, have many exceptions. They are guiding principles for legal understanding, not legal texts upon which judgement is based.”
This is an important point. The qawāʿid fiqhiyyah are not above the Qurʾān, Sunnah and the established rulings of the fuqahāʾ. They do not permit a person to bypass clear Sharʿī obligations by invoking broad principles in a selective or superficial way.
Where the Sharīʿah has already established the obligation of Muslim solidarity, protection and assistance, general maxims cannot be deployed to justify abandonment.
Misusing the principle of the lesser harm
The first principle reportedly invoked is that one should choose the lesser of two evils.
In its proper context, this is a recognised principle. However, its application here is deeply problematic.
The author appears to suggest that the possible danger “South African” Muslims may face for assisting their “foreign” Muslim brothers is greater than the real and immediate danger faced by those “foreign” Muslims themselves.
This is not an Islamic weighing of harms. It is a nationalist weighing of harms.
The only meaningful distinction being made between “local” and “foreign” Muslims is the legal status granted by the state. The result is that the safety of Muslims with recognised legal status appears to be treated as more sacred than the safety of Muslims without it.
That is not a Sharʿī framework. It is a political one.
A Muslim’s duty towards another Muslim cannot be reduced to whether the state recognises his papers. The sanctity of Muslim life is not determined by immigration status.
Misapplying the principle of public harm
The second principle reportedly cited is that a specific harm may be tolerated in order to ward off a general harm.
Even if, for argument’s sake, such a principle could be invoked in this context, the application remains flawed.
The harm being dismissed is not a small or isolated matter. It concerns the safety, dignity and possible abandonment of a significant section of the Muslim community.
Foreign Muslims in South Africa are not an abstract category. They are part of the masājid, communities, businesses, families and social fabric of Muslim life in the country.
To treat their possible harm as a lesser or more tolerable harm simply because they are labelled “foreign” is both morally and Islamically dangerous.
It allows the state’s classification of people to reshape the Islamic understanding of brotherhood, obligation and protection.
The Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah comparison
The author also refers to the events surrounding the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah. This comparison is legally and historically weak.
Firstly, in the cited incident, the Muslims had entered into a specific treaty with the disbelievers that included a condition relating to those who came from Makkah.
In the current situation, no such treaty exists.
Secondly, in the Treaty of Ḥudaybiyyah, the matter concerned those who fled from Makkah to Madīnah under the terms of a formal agreement. The present issue concerns Muslims already living in the same country, with one group proposing that another group be denied defence or shelter because they are considered “foreign”.
These are not the same circumstances.
Thirdly, the actions of Rasūlullāh ﷺ at Ḥudaybiyyah were guided by revelation and by knowledge granted to him regarding the outcome of those events. They cannot be casually invoked to justify abandoning Muslims to harm in a completely different context.
In fact, the Ḥanafī position is that such a condition would be invalid.
Ibn al-Humām states: “If they stipulate in the peace treaty that whoever comes from them as a Muslim must be returned to them, the condition is invalid. It is not obligatory to fulfil it, and whoever comes to us from them as a Muslim is not to be returned.”
This makes the casual use of Ḥudaybiyyah in this debate even more problematic.
A more relevant masʾalah
A more relevant masʾalah, which carries greater similarity to the present discussion, is mentioned in al-Baḥr al-Rāʾiq:
“If the enemy, among whom there were Muslims who had entered with amān, raided a group of Muslims, captured their children, and then passed by those Muslim mustaʾmins with them, it became obligatory upon them to break their covenants and fight them.”
This example is significant. In that scenario, Muslims had entered with amān, meaning a covenant of security. Yet they were still expected to break that covenant in order to defend fellow Muslims who were being unjustly held.
In our situation, there is no covenant requiring Muslims to abandon other Muslims. Nor are Muslims being asked to violate a treaty by sheltering the oppressed or defending those under threat.
The point is not to encourage recklessness. The point is that Islamic law does not permit Muslims to use caution as a cover for abandonment.
Wisdom is required, but abandonment is not justified
The current situation is sensitive. It requires wisdom, restraint and careful judgement.
Muslims should not act in ways that unnecessarily escalate tensions or place communities in greater danger. It may be that, in some cases, the safest course for vulnerable foreign Muslims is to leave a particular area or even the country if they are able to do so. But that may not always be possible.
Many people have families, businesses, work commitments, asylum claims or no safe place to return to. Others may be too poor or too vulnerable to leave quickly.
From our side, if matters reach a point where their lives and safety are under threat, we must not lose sight of our Sharʿī obligations towards them.
Rasūlullāh ﷺ said: “The Muslim is the brother of the Muslim. He does not wrong him, nor does he surrender him. Whoever is in the service of his brother’s need, Allah will be in the service of his need. Whoever relieves a Muslim of a hardship, Allah will relieve him of one of the hardships of the Day of Resurrection. And whoever conceals a Muslim, Allah will conceal him on the Day of Resurrection.”
Ibn Ḥajar explains:
“That is: he does not leave him with someone who will harm him, nor in a situation that will harm him. Rather, he supports him and defends him.”
This ḥadīth is directly relevant.
The obligation is not merely that a Muslim avoids personally harming his brother. Rather, he must not abandon him to those who will harm him, nor leave him exposed in a situation of danger.
Caution and wisdom may determine how assistance is given. They may shape the method, timing and form of support. But they cannot erase the obligation itself.
Muslim brotherhood is not defined by passports
The crisis facing Muslims in South Africa cannot be addressed through nationalist slogans or the categories of the modern nation-state.
There may be genuine concerns around crime, undocumented migration, social tensions and public order. These concerns require serious discussion and responsible leadership. But they do not permit Muslims to abandon other Muslims to harm.
The Sharīʿah does not recognise a hierarchy of Muslim life based on nationality. It does not allow the passport to replace īmān as the basis of brotherhood. It does not permit the language of “local” and “foreign” to override the obligations owed by one Muslim to another.
Wisdom is necessary. Prudence is necessary. Avoiding unnecessary escalation is necessary. But justifying abandonment is not wisdom. It is a surrender to nationalism dressed in Islamic language.
Muslims may differ over tactics, strategy and risk. But the principle must remain clear: we do not wrong our brothers, we do not surrender them, and we do not abandon them to harm simply because the state has labelled them “foreign”.
Maulana Usamah Dockrat is an Islamic scholar who graduated from Jami’ah al-Ulum al-Islamiyyah in Johannesburg.