The legal profession is the same as any other profession, from the Islamic point of view. In every type of work or profession, there are areas which may be against Islam and others which may be acceptable. What you do in your profession is your choice, and therefore you are responsible for it. If you use your skills or talents to achieve an illegitimate purpose, you are doing something forbidden and you are likely to be punished by Allah for it unless He, out of His grace, chooses to forgive you. The same applies to the legal profession.

If you learn of law and what it requires of every citizen and how you can live on the right side of the law, then that is well and good. If you also learn about loopholes in different laws and how these can be utilized to gain benefit or repel harm in a legitimate way, then you are doing well. On the other hand, if you learn about these loopholes in order to help hardened criminals evade their proper punishment, then you are doing something wrong.

If you are a famous lawyer and someone comes to you to say that he is accused of committing murder and he wants you to represent him, what should be your reaction if you are a good Muslim? The first question you ask that person is whether he has truly committed a murder or not. He may explain to you in detail what happened and you recognize that there are certain loopholes which could help you obtain a verdict of manslaughter instead of a verdict of murder. You may explain this to him and you agree a large fee and take on the case.

Free time is a blessing which many people squander without using it for some beneficial purpose. Any action which is likely to benefit a person, his family or community is a good way of spending free time. If you use your free time reading a book in order to improve your general knowledge, or reading a newspaper in order to remain aware of what is happening in the world around you, then that is certainly a good way of spending your free time. If you practice a sport in order to maintain your physical fitness, you also make a good use of your time.

It is certainly better to spend free time in a way that enhances your position with God, such as reading the Qur'an, or increasing your standard of Islamic knowledge, but this is not the only thing that you are allowed to do in your spare time. What is useful and permissible is always good to do, provided one is not neglecting a duty, or omitting a more important task.

Such questions are very tricky indeed. People may give all sorts of reasons for their actions. Some reasons may be highly valid. If they put such reasons and justifications to a scholar, he will give a verdict which supports their actions. What he will be doing is to give his ruling on the basis of the case they put to him. Whether that case is truly justified or not is something a scholar may not be able to tell. He is not to judge or prejudge intentions. That is something known to God alone.

An analogy may be taken from the Hadith in which the Prophet, peace be upon him, has warned his followers against justifying actions on the basis of verdicts he might have given them. He says: "I am only a human being, and you come to me with your disputes. Some of you may have a better argument to support his claim and I may make my judgment in his favor. Let everyone reflect: If I give one person something that belongs to his brother, I am only giving him a brand of fire. He may decide whether to take it or leave it." This Hadith shows the limitations of arbitration. A judge or a referee can only base his judgment on the evidence he may have in front of him. It is the claimant who really knows whether what he is claiming rightly belongs to him or not. So, when he is able to provide good evidence in support of his claim, he will get something that does not belong to him. It is that which the Prophet, peace be upon him, describes as a brand of fire. It will be fire in this life and a piece of hell fire in the life to come.

The same can be said about the questions my reader has put to me. Is it appropriate to start a new liberation movement with the same aims as the first? I cannot give an answer without looking at the credentials of both movements. What I can say is something tentative. Suppose that the founders of the new liberation movements have genuine doubts about the intentions and attitudes of the first movement. Suppose also that they suspect that its leaders are only using Islam as a cover in order to gain the support of the Muslim populations, and that should they assume power in the Muslim areas, they would adopt a secular attitude. If these fears are genuine, then they may be right to start their own movement which aims at establishing the rule of Islam in the Muslim area.

On the other hand, if the leaders of the new liberation movement have no such doubts, but they simply want to have power for themselves in the areas, then their action may be strongly censured. That is because by splitting the Muslim ranks, they weaken their cause and give their enemy a chance to defeat the whole Muslim community.

How can a scholar tell in which instances the formation of a second Islamic liberation front is justifiable or not? He can only form his ruling on the basis of the evidence put to him, and that evidence can easily be manipulated [or lopsided]. So the answer lies with those who form the second movement.

They are the ones who know their reasons and objectives. They should know whether their aims are justified or not. They certainly bear responsibility for their own actions and for their followers. And they must be very careful, because God will judge them on the basis of His knowledge of their intentions. He does not accept that the Muslim community should be split up only because some people want to be its leaders.

You ask what is permissible and what is forbidden in a situation of jihad. The answer is that what is forbidden in peace remains forbidden in war, unless there is a valid basis for its permissibility. Killing a peaceful civilian who has not fought the Muslims or supported those who fight them remains forbidden in any situation. It is only when that civilian moves to the position of a person at war with the Muslim community that he is treated differently.

It is permissible to take ransom in return for freeing enemy people who are taken captives. The Prophet, peace be upon him, took ransom from those non-believers who were taken prisoners in the Battle of Badr. It is true that God censured that action at the time but that censure does not look at the principle of taking ransom, but at the wisdom of doing so in that particular instance. However, that is possible in open warfare. Whether it is right to kidnap a priest or a civilian for that purpose is a totally different matter. Again, it is important to know the attitude of that particular person to Islam and the Muslims, and also to the war that is going on between the Muslims and the repressive authority.

If he is an active advocate of the war and repressive policy, then he is an enemy soldier, even though he may not raise arms himself. But if he is only engaged in religious duties, and looking after their parish and its population, then what justification do we have to kidnap him or to use him as a bargaining card?